For an example of the thread title, see Anand-Mamedyarov 1-0 from the Gashimov Memorial today.
That tournament is using increment starting at move 61, for the third and final time control. When I left for work I was sure Mamedyarov would win or at least make Anand find lots of ‘only’ moves to hold. On my lunch break I saw Anand had won. A quick glance at the game saw Mamedyarov overlook tactical tricks that I might have found on my best day. The losing blunder came on move 40.
Then I read the tournament regulations. Time control is 40/120, 20/60, SD/15, inc-30 (61). Interesting that some GMs prefer increment only in the ultimate control, or so we read when Corus switched to increment starting on move one years ago.
Having increment (or delay) only in the final control is an abomination. I’ll bet Mamedyarov is one GM who no longer supports the idea (if he ever did). Thank goodness the world is gradually wising up.
Bill Smythe
The counter-argument for a time control of 40/120, 20/60, SD/15 inc30(move 61) vs 40/120, 20/30, SD/15 inc30(move 1) is that the first one allows a player who has used 115 minutes for the first 40 moves to then spend 60 minutes planning things on move 41 while in the second one you don’t get 175 minutes until move 50. Also, in the first one you can spend 115 minutes on the first 25 moves while in the second one you would have flagged. Having the ability for a long think early is supposed to be more advantageous than being in time trouble later. Most players making that argument get into time trouble regularly and thus I would expect that increment from move 1 is a better option than putting it in after move 60. If it was d30 instead of inc30 then there is a somewhat stronger argument in favor of more time early and delay starting at move 61 (with delay you don’t get to save the unused delay time for later moves) but I still think move 1 is a better starting point.
Another problem with increment only in the final control is that it reverses the traditional look and feel of the initial controls vs that of the final control. By “traditional look and feel” I mean the look and feel that existed before the advent of increment and delay.
Formerly, the initial controls felt more relaxed, because you knew you were getting some additional time when the next control arrived. The final control was more rush-rushed, because of the sudden death.
With increment beginning only with the final control, the initial controls will likely feel more rushed, because you could wind up with just seconds to play the last several moves of the control, whereas in the final control you’ll always have that increment time on each move.
I suppose you could even say that advocates of limiting increment to the final control might be described as upside-downists.
Bill Smythe
if we wanted perfect play, we can just watch the iccf matches.
…scot…
Side question: How was the increment-starting-at-61 implemented on the clocks being used? Was the increment triggered by the clock’s own move counter, or was it handled manually?
Some clocks, in some modes, will trigger the next control according to what (the clock thinks) the move count is. On other clocks, or in other modes, the next control is triggered by the expiration of (the remaining time in) the previous control. And in the latter case, some clocks may begin the final control for each player when that player’s previous control expires (in which case one player may begin getting the increment several moves sooner than the other), while other clocks may begin the final control for both players when one player’s previous control expires.
It has been debated ad nauseum whether the clock’s move counter should trigger the start of the next control, or whether the clock should simply assume that the next control begins when a player’s (or both players’) previous control expires. There are legitimate arguments in favor of both (or all three?) options.
In this tournament, I could see chaos developing unless the move counter triggers the final control. I could also see chaos developing if the move counter triggers the control. I wonder whether the organizer thought through all the possibilities ahead of time, and which setting option they chose on the clocks actually used. Inquiring minds want to know.
Bill Smythe