17409 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I looked for the post by PerfectGent about this (I think it was he who wrote it) but could not find.
So, what are some alternate ideas for time controls? Please add your own as well! Each option could have vacation and no-vacation options.
My favorite of these is the X moves in Y days. Like 20 moves in 10 days. And of course when you make your 20th moves, you get 10 more days added to your clock. This would make a system which is faster (average of half a day per move), more predictable, and less susceptible to people going on vacation.
What do you mean by hourglass style?
The 1st 2 have an issue:
Both players would have to be online at approximately the same time to guarantee the ability to make more than one move per day,
Eg. Opponents in South Africa and Japan, each spending 8pm to midnight (their local time) here, would never be able to make more than one move per day.
I think it was in his Blog which is no longer accessible.
Note that all moves in Y days is a specific case of X moves in Y days (as X approaches infinity).
I've always like options like the ones above that give much more certainty to the total duration of a game. I've had tournaments here run multiple years (much to my surprise) which is why I'd never enter a no-vacation tournament. If the duration of each round were more certain I might change this view.
Hourglass style is where you both start out with (for example) 10 days, then if you take 1 day, your clock is at 9 days and your opponent's is at 11. Then they take 3 days, and they are at 8 and you are at 12.
You're right about that specific example. But that user could then enter a 10 moves in 12 days tournament, where they might previously never have considered entering a 1 move in 1 day tournament.
Ah, ok. I assumed (illogically, it seems) the idea was to get in multiple moves per day.
I think the idea is that sometimes you will get multiple in per day, and sometimes you won't. As @TheGrobe said above, it gives more certainty. It allows you to choose when you want to use your time.
I'll give an example. I've been in games where there is some position where I really know I have to put in some time. But it's not the exact board position, my current move is to get out of check with an "only" move. After that I'm pretty sure my opponent will make some move, giving me "the choice". As it stands right now, the right thing to do is to take the full 3 days on the get-out-of-check move, followed by the full 3 days on the real move, just so I can get as much as possible of time. This type of stuff would entirely go away with the proposed system.
Note that I have no idea if hourglass chess would make any sense at all, it's more of a novelty, so that anybody else can start posting their own ideas.
I'm so glad you posted a novelty to allow for dog-time-controls. Let me explain...
Dogs live seven years on the planet and they're almost fifty years old. Dogs can't remember if you gave them a treat ten minutes ago. Playing chess under dog-time-rules(DTR) presents various problems which may lead to the omission of human beings participating in near-future chess tournaments.
I'm confused, is that near-future in dog years, or human years?
I'm confused by this. Most people enter no-vacation tournaments because they usually progress much faster than vacation-permitted tournaments.
I think the first option is at the very least superior to what we currently have.
My reasons are maybe somewhat different than those stated by others above. I think having a fixed time available for every move is against the very nature of the game of chess as some moves (maybe most of the moves?) are rather obvious so you'd like to play them fast and use the saved time on the critical moments. Under the current time controls you don't gain any benefit from playing obvious moves fast.
The possible reduction for the need to take vacation is an added bonus.
@Shakaali Good point. I wrote about that idea in post #6 but you put it rather more eloquently.
That would be interesting.
Or maybe, starting with 5 days and with 6h of Fischer time per move.
The notion that <1000 is awful?
by AIM-AceMove 6 minutes ago
8/30/2016 - All Things Are Connected
by Ratiti 11 minutes ago
Who is your favorite Grandmaster??
by Manish_Singh_001 11 minutes ago
Chess.com worst website on the internet
by 45_automatic 25 minutes ago
Shogi and Xiangqi pieces and characters
by HGMuller 26 minutes ago
$200 to spend
by RussBell 34 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by kamileon 41 minutes ago
8/23/2016 - Revelation
by estenssoro 52 minutes ago
PawnCollector2013's account is closed!
by darwinc2007 53 minutes ago
Wanna gain more?
by akraizada 59 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!