I think is cause in real life old clocks, and actual here in Argentina, have not the possibilitie to set increments, so we born playing without increment and human is an animal that rarely changes what he use to do :-)
Why do people play without increments?
Sort:
Why are you whining about it, either play with it or don't. I prefer not to have increment.
Mar 7, 2015
0
#4
I think increments are probably better overall, but not having them adds an extra element of management.
As JCapanegra noted, in the days of old clocks it wasn't even possible and the rules have been around a while now.
Hey just change your clocks tonight!!
RCMorea wrote:
I think increments are probably better overall, but not having them adds an extra element of management.
As JCapanegra noted, in the days of old clocks it wasn't even possible and the rules have been around a while now.
Sure it's possible, just have a referee add on or oversee the adding on of the time. I'm including time limits where you get 20 minutes for every additional 15 moves or whatever.
Mar 7, 2015
0
#7
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
RCMorea wrote:
I think increments are probably better overall, but not having them adds an extra element of management.
As JCapanegra noted, in the days of old clocks it wasn't even possible and the rules have been around a while now.
Sure it's possible, just have a referee add on or oversee the adding on of the time. I'm including time limits where you get 20 minutes for every additional 15 moves or whatever.
Hmm. "Possible" may have been very slightly imprecise. Perhaps it wasn't "practical" is more precise. Or, perhaps it wasn't "sufficiently easy that people considered it an option in the same way they consider it an option today" would be more precise still, although a bit unweildy.
In general terms, it became common to do this when clocks could do it for you.
You gotta wear a skirt to wanna play with time increments
Mar 7, 2015
0
#9
It makes making a time schedule more difficult, because a queen endgame (or rook and bishop vs rook) can take alot of time.
By the way, people miss the good old days where time trouble was difficult, time trouble with 30 sec increment is not real time trouble
And there are those: "We have done this since 1887"
According to chessgames.com, the very first chess tournament ever played with clocks had time added on per moves. So that guy who said "in the old days the clocks were different" is either mistaken or missing the point.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012412
Increments make a lot of sense.
Too many people on this site (erroneously) believe that increments give a greater opportunity for engine use.
Even when watching games between 2300+ players, they sometimes end up in silly, and blunder-ridden, time scrambles at Game in 3/0.
I always try to play with at least a 5 second bonus. That way you have a fighting chance to get to the end of the game ON THE BOARD, instead of the clock.
Regardless, there's no accounting for taste, or for some folk's reasoning.
captnding123 wrote:
Hey just change your clocks tonight!!
Good point. If I'm playing tonight and it's time to spring forward, does the game end?? The clock would jump forward an hour.
If you don't like a race against time then why play with clocks at all? Or at least stick to correspondence. Stupid thread.
Increments definately make for a better game, but I think certain people - myself included - like the fact that in bullet particularly you can play for a win even if you are getting smashed on the board just by surviving long enough to make your opponent flag, it's another dimension of the game that you don't have in standard chess.
Because I want to finish the game in a set amount of time
There are advantages to using increments . 1) The games are more often decided by the play on the board and not the clock and 2) You more often have a complete scoresheet as neither player can ever stop keeping score if the increment is 30 sec. or more . 3) you dont have to worry about some clown flagging you in dead drawn positions because he has more time left at the end of the game than you do .
If games are fast enough that you dont have to keep score I prefer no increments and no delays ...
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
According to chessgames.com, the very first chess tournament ever played with clocks had time added on per moves. So that guy who said "in the old days the clocks were different" is either mistaken or missing the point.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1012412
Increments make a lot of sense.
The article that you mentioned doesn't say anything about "time added on per moves." Those sorts of time controls weren't invented until Fischer developed the Fischer clock, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock
In my somewhat limited recent blitz experience, people used clocks with increment features, but stuck with a pure 5/0 time control anyway.
They seemed to prefer the game to be shorter and didn't mind time scrambles.
Personally I prefer to play with an increment.
Can people justify this way of playing?
Seems like for any really long game (lots of moves) it'll be just a race for time. Even a 2 second increment can at least mean you don't lose when you're two queens up.