I've only been playing in tournaments for about 10 years, but from what I have read, these SD time controls have not added anything to the game other than a rigid schedule. What were tournaments like 20 or 30 years ago? Especially weekend swiss events?
Sudden Death Time Controls
Sort:
EEShelton wrote:
I've only been playing in tournaments for about 10 years, but from what I have read, these SD time controls have not added anything to the game other than a rigid schedule. What were tournaments like 20 or 30 years ago? Especially weekend swiss events?
They were torture, usually playing 3 games on Sat and 2 on Sun. There were also adjourned games to deal with as well. I dont recall the time controls perfectly but it seems they were like 40 moves in 90 minutes , then a secondary control of like 20 more moves in 30 min (maybe not exact, but you get the idea) and then the game was adjourned if neither player was ready to resign or they werent ready to agree a draw. Keep in mind all my playing back then was in the southeast USA so I dont know how they were doing it in the rest of the country.
I liked the older rules, I don't play tournament chess, but faster time controls at the end of a game, could spoil a classic game. I liked the idea of adjournment, but can see how this could give organizers a few headaches.
H, reb, I have still left the site mostly for now but sometimes I log in for a quick look now and then 
and I noticed your thread and I felt compelled to say : arn't the non adjournment length time controls simply necessary now to prevent computer analysis during adjournment? I think that perhaps the quality of the games must have peaked during the Kasparov Karpov matches because of this - which is sad - but I think that faster games are better for the spectator who watches in real time and it is good that it prevents computer cheating.
I think that a blitz finish is better than used to happen in UK club chess. I never experienced it because it was before my time, but apparently it was like this:
1. Sometimes, all unfinished games were adjudicated
2. In other cases, unfinished games where one of the players had more than 20 mins (or something like it) at the end of the second time control were adjudicated.
The end result was savvy players dressing up the position by putting their pieces in attacking positions (without necessarily knowing how to proceed). And a low standard of endgame technique.
I personally like blitz finishes cause at least it gets the game over with, but I know good players who dont like it. I think it has to favour the weaker player since more random factors come into play. The worst case is when you are definitely winning but just dont have the time to physically make your moves. The temptation after being the victim of this is to move quicker next time you play, and maybe blunder. Definitely not make such good moves as usual.
I was going over a game at the weekend which was between Kasparov and Kramnik in a quickplay tournament. They reached a dead drawn position but Kramnik had less than a minute to make all his moves (and I mean all his moves). Result was he blundered and lost. Fair play to Garry, but I think if this can happen to Kramnik it proves the point. Of course , in this example it was a quickplay tourney so its fair enough. I just think in a league or tournament game where you have certain time controls it seems to be moving the goalposts to suddenly have a blitz finish. Why not just play a blitz game to start with, or possibly toss a coin.
The problems with adjourned games are several. But with everyone having access to strong programs now would it really be cheating if everyone is using one? I have always been against adjournments even before computers. Whats the answer? I would like to see games finished in one sitting but there must be a max # of hours for a game then maybe adjudicate the game if its not finished? G/2 hours has become fairly popular here which is like a long blitz game , I have seen draws lost, wins drawn due to the clock. Is this good? Also I see drawn endings being played out because one player has 5 min left and maybe the other is under 2 min......his only hope : to win on time. Another popular time control here is G/90 but with a 30 sec increment for each move. As for spectators and what they like I rarely see any spectators, they are so few as to be insignificant imo.
Most of the changes I have seen in chess in my 30+ years of tournament play are more for the benefit of the organizers and Tds than for the players. Is this proper? I mean chess tournaments are for chess players arent they? So shouldn't changes be made with the benefit of the players in mind, and not so much the TDs and organizers ? I am glad adjournments are gone, every game should be played to a conclusion in one sitting imo. However when players are forced to blunder away a win or draw due to the finish being at blitz speeds I dont think this is good for the players nor for chess, the quality of the game. Another thing I detest is the "reentry" that is used now that allows a player to re-enter after losing round one. This is nothing but greed that allows this nonsense and it should be stopped.
Reb, it seems like it would be difficult to schedule more than one round per day if you require all the games to finish in one sitting with no sudden death time control. 2 rounds per day is a great benefit to the average player, it's the only way to have a weekend tournament.
The sudden death time control allows you to make a definite schedule of round times. I think it greatly benefits the players to know when the next round is going to start.
Loomis wrote:
Reb, it seems like it would be difficult to schedule more than one round per day if you require all the games to finish in one sitting with no sudden death time control. 2 rounds per day is a great benefit to the average player, it's the only way to have a weekend tournament.
The sudden death time control allows you to make a definite schedule of round times. I think it greatly benefits the players to know when the next round is going to start.
I started playing tournaments in 1973 and back then and for at least a decade the normal swiss tourney was 3 rounds on sat and 2 on sunday. We usually finished all games in one sitting and had no sd time controls but did have adjournments. However in all my years of tournament chess I have only had 2 games adjourned and one of those was in Germany, so only one in the USA.
Can you expand on your earlier post where you said "they were torture."?
What was the schedule like? Even if you just remember roughly, how did you fit 3 rounds in one day? I find that today G/2 is somewhat rare, more often is 40/2 SD/1 or 30/90 SD/1, so I would expect even with sudden death time controls that some games will go longer than 4 hours. This makes for a very long 3 round day of chess -- probably 13, 14 hours for some. I can't imagine the quality of chess doesn't suffer in a long day like that.
In 5 round swisses we played 3 games on Sat , first round usually in the am 9 am or so 2nd at 3 pm was common with third at 8 pm......I recall the rounds were often 5 hours apart. On Sun round 4 was often in the am 9 or 10 and last round in the afternoon. I dont remember when they started having the option of playing the first round on fri evening and then 2 on sat and 2 on sun but this was a change I liked as I usually took the option of playing on fri evening when I could. It was torture because you had to play 12 to 15 hours of chess in one day with little time (if any) between rounds to grab a sandwich or take a break. Its much harder on older players ofcourse as fatigue becomes a critical factor for them.
It sounds like torture. And given your description of 12-15 hour days, how can you not view a change that eliminates this as good for the players?
Well , personally I dont face these problems anymore as here classic events are usually one round per day and there are no re-entries. In Europe chess is very different than in the US and better in some ways while worse in some as well. I face different problems here. The game in 2 hour format is a fide control that is popular here recently. That and the G/90 but with 30 sec increments per move. These are the two most common time controls used in events I play here. Of the two I prefer the one with increments as it doesnt lead to as many blown games due to the clock. One of the problems I see here is that there are often too many rounds for the number of players. I have played in rapid events of say 100 players and 9 rounds when 7 rounds would have been sufficient. I am now spoiled by the one round per day format in classic chess though and dont imagine I will ever return to playing 2 and 3 rounds a day. I am older now and its just too hard/exhausting and a big advantage to the younger players.
The first rated event I played in was a "quad", do they still have these ? In a quad they divide players by rating into groups of 4 and then those players play a round robin against one another, usually first in each group got a prize and that was it. The usual prize was a trophy back then. (early 70s)
Reb, I can't imagine the average chess player playing in a one game per day tournament. That may be fine for chess professionals, but us working stiffs need to wrap it up over the weekend.
Looking back at one of your earlier posts, you list a time control of 40/90 + 20/30. Is 60 moves in 2 hours and 80 moves in 2.5 hours that different from 30/90 + SD/60? The difference is really only in games lasting longer than 80 moves. Tournaments like the World Open are still 40/2 SD/1. This is just as long as your non sudden death time control except for games longer than 100 moves.
I do agree that there is a big difference between G/2 and non sudden death time controls. I'm actually really surprised that a one game a day format would use G/2. There is a big tournament here that is G/2, but they have two round a day plus an evening activity -- it is more like a chess festival than just a chess tournament.
I think that playing a game lasting over 6 hours would probably lead to fatigue blunders. So there's one reason to have SD time controls that the players should like.
The most popular here in Florida right now seems to be G/120, which bugs me. It's just barely fast enough that I usually end up in time trouble in 2 or 3 games in a 5 game weekend Swiss. When we used to (4-6 years ago) have time controls of 30/90 SD/1 or 40/120 SD/1, it was just long enough that I didn't run into that time trouble in the endgame nearly as often. Given that the tournaments with the G/120 time limits usually have 2 hours (or more!) between games, I don't know why they can't make it G/150 or 30/90 SD/1 to add an hour to each game instead of having such a long break.
Personally, I prefer the FIDE time controls. I played in the Miami Open in September, which had a time control of 90 minutes, plus a 30 second increment. That extra 30 seconds per move means that you'll never get stuck in a pure blitz situation, so I greatly prefer it. Again, I'd prefer even slower than 90 minutes with the 30 second increment, but this is still better than just G/120.
As for quads, I've only ever had the chance to play in one. It was G/60, and I did terrible. I'm just not good at such fast time controls.
--Fromper
I understand that the "working stiffs" cant play 1 round a day events in the USA. I was one for decades and could never play anything like the US Open for example even when it was once held in Atlanta Georgia. Since Europeans get more time off from work every year than Americans do 1 round a day events work better here than in the USA. Lisbon has several one round a day events during each year and the games are at night so working people can play and not miss work or take vacation to play. However , this only works for those living in Lisbon or one of its suburbs. I think otb classic games shouldnt go more than 6 hours , 5 might also be ok , but G/2 is a 4 hour game at most. Maybe G/2.5 would be better? Much money is saved here by organizers by using venues for events other than hotels. Gymnasiums are often used and schools. The money saved can be used in some other way. There are down sides to this too however. The biggest is that the venue often has no climate control so in winter you shiver through your games and in summer you might pass out from the heat. I have played very few events here that are held in a large Hotel but in the US most of the events I played were in Hotels.
Ret, you shouldnt be so defensive about everything as if its a personal attack against you or other TD's. I am speaking as a player on possible ways of improving things for the players since tournaments are for the players, or should be. Actually knowing how hard it is for the working stiff to play in the US I think there should be many more action (rapid here) events of like G/20 or G/25 and play 6 or 7 round swiss system like this. This form of chess is more popular in Portugal than any other. In the US this would mean only one day of chess and the family man wouldnt have to spend the entire weekend away from home/family often arriving home late on Sunday and having to rise early on Monday to go to work. With the expense of playing classic tourney chess in the US being what it is I dont see how it survives. Even when I would win an event in Atlanta the first prize was usually just enough to cover my expenses and that was it. I was lucky if I had enough left over to add a new book to my collection of fill the car with gas for the 2.5 hour trip home. I have won 1 day rapid events here and won as much as $300. while paying a $7. entry fee. The ratio of prize money to entry fee is much better here. Ofcourse there is much more support/sponsorship for chess here and thats why.
I have been playing tournament chess more than 30 years and one of the big changes I have witnessed are the SD time controls. Who do they favor? Are they good or bad for chess? I can see why they have been implemented:so that organizers and TDs know when the round will end and when the next one will begin. They also eliminate adjournments. However, do they raise or lower the quality of the game? Is it good or bad for the players? Is it good to have high quality games spoiled by such controls? I have also noticed such controls encourage behavior that might be considered "unethical".