The two-segment form of long time control is common today. For example, something like the following:
Segment_1: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, plus a delay of 5 seconds per move; then next…
Segment_2: 60 minutes for all remaining moves, plus a delay of 5 seconds per move.
*** Question: Why not simplify down to one segment and just say: 160 minutes for all moves, plus a 5 second delay?
What is the reasoning for having more than one segment per time control?
(I am not implying anything about whether there is a good reason. But it would help me understand if someone could well articulate whatever that reason is. Thanks.)
Back in the good old days there were things like adjournments and a breakneck pace to make a certain amount of moves in a certain amount of minutes. Undoubtedly, these time controls were a compromise situation from the days when chess tournaments had no time controls at all.
Now in the twenty-first century where adjournments are useless because of computers and the clocks do all sorts of magic tricks your idea of one time control should gain a lot of traction. Why indeed have the pretense of a rush to get to some arbitrary move. It would make the director’s job simpler…No need to count those moves and such. Maybe I’m wrong about all of this, just some thoughts.
The control seems to signify a natural point to consider resigning the game if you have a lost position. If your opponent has just made the time control and emerged with a winning position, his chances of losing on time, or of blundering in time pressure, before finishing you off over the board have just gone done dramatically, and youi’re more likely also to waste your own time waiting for your opponent to force checkmate. But with only one sudden death time control, there might be more of an incentive for an opponent to play on interminably with a lost position if you have less time.
If increment time controls had been possible decades ago, the idea of multiple controls would probably never have gotten off the ground. If you have xxxx number of minutes for starters, plus yy number of minutes (or seconds) per move, then surely some combination of xxxx and yy would provide the kind of “feel” any organizer is looking for.
But yesteryear’s clocks couldn’t do this, and it seemed silly to manually reset the clock every move. So the poor man’s version of increment was invented. If we can’t do 90 seconds per move, let’s do it in 40-move chunks, i.e. 40 moves per hour. After 40 moves, each player gets another hour for another 40 moves. It comes out the same time per move, 90 seconds on the average. Thus is born 40/60, then 40/60, then 40/60 etc indefinitely.
The idea then got a little more refined (and complicated) by having second controls that were different from the first, and later, by adding sudden death, and still later, by adding a 5-second delay to partly compensate for the ill effects of sudden death.
But all of that is unnecessary now. There is really no good reason, IMHO, for multiple controls to still exist. Just use increment (somewhere between 30 and 90 seconds) instead.
The point of multiple time controls is one of a player managing their time. I have always expressed the opinion that 30/90, SD/1 should just be G/150. I know of 1 master in my state who expressed the opinion that they preferred the multiple time controls. The other point of the multiple time control is that for a 40/2, SD/1 control there is the idea of 3 minutes per move for the first time control. That idea of a set amount of time per move is often what the player is looking for/at for a tournament. This is what was the driving force in the old days of tournaments without and sudden death controls.
The director/organizer is looking at the time controls for how to set the rounds with regards to the time considerations of the space that is being used for the tournament. As such the straight forward G/150 style of time controls make it easier to calculate this out.
Before this gets completely out of hand, let me offer the other side of this argument. I had this discussion with Mr. Smythe once before and eventually abandoned it when I concluded that he was just incapable of understanding my viewpoint or accepting that it had any validity. So this is for the benefit of the others in this thread.
I believe that two time controls are essential for achieving the highest level of play throughout the game. It is all very well to say that a single control will work fine if the player just figures out how much time he want to use on average to reach 40, 50 or 60 moves - and paces himself accordingly. In practice, I know very few serious players who can do that. With one control, it always comes down to making a lot of moves fast, with a much lower quality of play.
With two controls, the artificial discipline allows a player to raise the level of play again after a short span of quicker moves. With more base time provided, it becomes possible again to have a “big think” if necessary, to find the right path. I can’t begin to tell you the number of games I have had where that second allotment of base time was critical. A few examples:
At the 1994 U.S. Open, I reached a lost queen + pawn ending vs. an FM just at the time control at move 40. With more time to think, I invested a few extra minutes and found the best possible defense, creating the maximum problems on each move. Eventually my opponent became impatient with the precision required and tried to end things more quickly, allowing me to find a careful sequence leading to a draw. I could never have found the right moves with only a few minutes left.
At the 1999 National Open, I reached a drawn rook + pawn ending (his 3 pawns vs. my two, all on the kingside) vs. GM Gufeld. He played it out to the bitter end and it was not an easy defense. Time and again, he was able to create positions in which one - and only one - move would draw. If it had been one time control, I might have had only five or ten minutes left, which would not have been enough, even with delay or a 30 second increment. With a whole hour added to my time, I found all the right moves and reached the draw on move 114.
Just last year, I had a game against a lower rated opponent in which I reached the first time control at move 40 with less than a minute on my clock. I had an edge in a tricky ending but wasn’t sure it was winning. I played a couple of obvious moves and then on move 42, I spent 43 minutes of the hour I had received for the second control. I analyzed all the possible tries as close to the end as I could, concluding eventually that it was drawn with best play by my opponent. But that time allowed me to understand everything about the position and find the best possible winning attempt. He used about two minutes per move for his replies and soon went wrong, allowing me to trade into a winning position.
Playing the best possible chess requires an occasional long think, not only near the beginning of the game but also closer to the end. Three minutes per move does not mean three minutes on each move. Sometimes you need 10, 15 or more minutes to deal with a complicated situation. Anything that is G/xx will eventually reduce to a situation where such time investments are not possible.
So, that’s my take on this debate. As always, with a choice of tournament formats available, the players can decide which ones they want to support. Mr. Smythe and his supporters can go to the G/120 tournaments; I will go the 40/120,G/60 events.
I would add that the more I see of increment, the more it seems far superior to delay and far more likely to make a two time control event better. At a FIDE/USCF rated event I ran Friday night, one player was down to 1 second in a G/3 + 2 time control. He moved and had 3 seconds. He eventually got his time up to 31 seconds. Had it been delay he would have continually had only 1 second with 2 second delay. Same thing can happen with 5 second delay versus 30 second increment. With the latter you can build up a few extra minutes of thinking time, with the former you are always forced to move in 5 seconds or lose time.
Hal - You’ve probably played increment at the World Open. Did that feel like a different time control, did you ever feel under time pressure?
Comment to NM Terrie’s post,
With two controls the discipline is not artificial, it is real. It is required that you make the time controls or else. With the one big control it is easy to see where the game could just blend into an unconstrained mash. In my earlier post I mentioned that the original poster’s idea should probably gain traction to ease the tournament director’s job, not produce quality chess. I would even take this one a step further and give enough time to each player that takes into account the five second delay before each move and the increment for making moves. Just add the maximum time (130 moves worth should do) up front before the start of the game and then we could even bring back analog clocks. Nothing will stop pathological time pressure addicts from getting into their “predicament.” The current conditions really make it difficult to determine when a game will actually end with the perpetual delay before each move. Just make a set time and no round need ever be late. I still remember how a NM friend of mine had the worst time adjusting to one control action chess. He was a great specialist in reaching the first control and mopping up what was left afterwards with great precision. This was way back in the twentieth-century, I really miss such dramatic spectacles.
Yes, I have played increment time controls. I have directed one event using them as well. My experience has been that 40/90,SD/60,incr. 30 is fairly equivalent to 40/120,SD/60,d5 and is fully acceptable for the most serious chess. However, 40/90,SD/30,incr. 30 is NOT as good - it’s not bad and I would accept that control for local weekend events but not for the biggest tournaments where one hopes to play the most serious chess.
Of course it’s better in time pressure to have 30 seconds than to have 5 seconds but that’s not the only issue. As I already explained, the BASE time for the second control is critical, in case it’s necessary to invest a lot of time on the ending.
Rob, I think that it is important for directors and organizers to do their best to meet the needs of the players, as well as quality games first. I do like the idea of having the multiple time control, and it may be psychological as much as anything else. As given in the examples, a secondary time control and increment are measures that keep it MOST about chess, and less about cheapos on time.
We know that there are many faster, dual-rated events, and there are just about always games that are decided by time pressure. A good increment, such as 30 seconds, avoids winning games being lost much of the time. Generally speaking, the younger players like the faster time controls, but there is no denying that longer times produce better games.
Actually, meeting the “perceptions” of the players and their parents first is the key for most organizers as it should be. While there is no question that longer
time controls such as you have described, are best for the development of the player, most parents/kids are not willing/unable to commit to the longer period
required for these time controls. The more I tutor, the more I realize a central truth–for chess to become really developed In a youngsters life, it must be
a priority. Not a mere equal (at best) sibling with soccer, baseball, football, etc. Far more parents are much more likely to agree to multi-day events for
the sports mentioned (and others), than chess–lets face the fact–chess is NOT currently mainstreamed into the American Culture. I do hope this will occur
in my in the next 20 years or so.
But until this happens, the numbers simply, for the most part, are not there unless one can find sponsors to subsidize such events, compared to shorter
period, such as G/30 events. The DCC G/30 events for the most part, have 80-115 participants. Longer time control events are lucky to have 40-50.
Perhaps this is the best reason for multi-segmented time control events, such as say an event that is G/30 R1, G/30 R2, G/45 R3, G/45 R4, and G/60 R5.
It is a long day, but such events like this are feasible in a single day. Eliminate a round, and more so. This type of structure supplies a “smorgasborg”
of time controls.
I don’t think that’s what the OP had in mind, I believe he was referring to having two or more time controls for a game, not having different time controls depending upon the round.
Let’s admit it, the only reason we have multi-segmented time controls is traditions that go back to the first usage of clocks. Before that there was only one session of play, which was open and potentially interminable. The first usage of clocks was designed to get games over with in a reasonable time. Compromises were made to accommodate the slowish players who did not want to be penalized with fines. The championship standards we are used to seeing go back to the Lasker-Capablanca and Alekhine-Capablanca matches. Even those standards were considered speeded up versions of the rules on time controls at the time. They fit the quicker thinking Capablanca best.
Had digital clocks existed in those days, IMO opinion there would have been at best two sessions and some sort of delay or increment implemented for each session. What constitutes “quality” play is a matter of opinion, but the history of the game trends to about six hours of total play. This quality of play does not necessarily lead to fewer blunders. The present time controls are leading to more endgame errors on the top level.
Do amateur players want to play 6 hour games? Many of the amateurs I know do not dream of or expect perfection in their play. They have a limited time to play chess. A one day tournament or at best two-day is as much as they are prepared to handle. For these players, faster time controls from Game 60 to Game 90 provide them the entertainment and challenge that they desire. They are not so thrilled by grueling sitzfleisch games that last 6 hours. Maybe that is what a few posters like, to grind down an opponent physically. It is not what the amateurs I know consider quality chess.
As far as bathroom breaks and other needs. Well, I wish I could play in tournaments where the organizers give out food and drink, have special bathroom facilities, and a climate controlled environment to play. The reality is that we play under all sorts of conditions that we have to adapt to. I make it a rule to take a bathroom break from one half hour to 45 minutes from the end of the session. I don’t nervously guzzle sports drinks or high caffeinated concoctions or huge bottles of water. Everything in moderation and awareness of oneself is in order. Those are elements of quality of play, too.
I think we are talking about several different things here. One the one extreme is the time control for a world championship match on the other end is the time control for a weekend Swiss. The former will be at most one round per day and the latter will be at least two rounds per day. While six hours is a good amount of time for a quality game, that is not true if you have to play two six-hour games in a day.
A single time control is easiest for the organizer but it does not appear to be what the players prefer. Anyone can organize a G/180 d/5 tournament, if they want. The problem is that players in lost positions can waste huge amounts time. Forcing the games to reach 30 or 40 moves requires progress and prevents delaying tactics.
Right now, my favorite time control for a five round weekend tournament is 30/90, SD/30 + 30". The games move along without any real pressure to get to 30 moves in the first time control. Unfortunately, FIDE wants people to play faster and only allows 40/90, SD/30 +30" for norm sections with two rounds per day.
Mike Regan
Mike, as I understood the argument within FIDE, part of it was that having a time control at 30 moves was considered inferior to having a time control at 40 moves. This has to do with the dynamics of the position after 30 or 40 moves.
This isn’t terribly relevant to non-professional level chess, but does anyone know what the secondary time control was in the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match? I know the first time control was 40 in 2 1/2 hours with adjourned games being concluded the next day, but I’ve consulted several books on the match and I can’t find a reference to what the time control was in the adjournment.
I believe 40 in 2 1/2, 16 in 1, 16 in 1, 16 in 1, etc. was the time control was used for most top tournaments/matches from 1948 until the last Kasparov-Karpov match.
Before WWII, games went even slower. Stenitiz-Zukertort had a time control of 30/2, with eight hours of play scheduled per day. Four hours, adjourn for a two-hour dinner, and then up to another four hours. One of Lasker’s matches (I forget which one) had a time control of 12/1.
