Thanks, Klaus.
Hmmm, well I though that Lasker once had a 12/1 time control match, but I can’t seem to find it. I did find that Anderssen-Steinitz (1866) had an even slower time control of 20/2. Most of the world championship matches from Steinitz-Zukertort all the way to Alekhine-Capablanca have variants on a 15/1 time control, including a strange 37/2 1/2, 23/1 1/2, 15 /1, which still works out to four minutes a move.
1-0!
I like one time control because:
-
It allows you to use more base time if necessary rather than having to speed up to get to some arbitrary number of moves.
-
It makes the rules simpler as you don’t have the different rules for the sudden death and non-sudden death phases of the game. I know a lot of players who weren’t aware of the different rules in non-sudden death, such as the rule that you have to have a “reasonably complete” scoresheet to claim a win on time.
-
On the Chronos clock, a time control with two or more segments is usually set to where you can see the base time and the move counter but not the delay. With one time control, the Chronos is often set to where you can see the delay time.
.
TO: Forum Administrators
I could be wrong, but I think I started this thread around June 23 2015, not in the year 2013 as the first entry shows?
.
You are mistaken. Look at the other posts - they all date from 2013. The thread was then dormant until someone made a new post this year.
– Hal Terrie
I had a recent tournament game that was played at 30/90;SD/30;d10. I was dead lost but my opponent got into time pressure to make the 30 moves, blundered, and lost. Had the time control been G/120;d10, he would have won easily. Multiple time controls often cause time pressure that wouldn’t exist if there was just one control.
In general I don’t like multiple controls. Now that we have increment (or delay), multiple controls don’t seem necessary anymore. The event you played in with 30/90 SD/30 could just as well have been G/120.
But if the total control exceeds 2 hours, multiple controls have a point – to forcibly speed up a slow-moving and dead lost opponent. I’d hate to have to sit for 3 hours wasting my time. Make him hurry up for several moves until he reaches 40, by which time even he should realize he is dead lost, or if he doesn’t, at least I can do something else (such as look at other games still being played) while he plods, because by that time his game will be SO lost I won’t even have to put much effort into it.
Bill Smythe
That seems an odd time control, and I would think G/110;d10 or G120;d10 would make more sense for a four hour session. However, 30/90 with d/10 isn’t exactly enforcing a rapid pace. Whether you were objectively “dead lost” isn’t really relevant if the opponent has left a position complicated enough that he can’t get to move 30 on the 10 second delay without blundering the game away.
The larger the amount of Increment (or delay), the less need there is to have more than one segment in the time-control.
With Increment of 60 seconds, the chunk of time given by the segment can be much reduced, further reducing the need for more than one segment.
(A Delay of 60 seconds would be dumb, which is partly why Increment is better than Delay.)
But his T-C has only Delay=10seconds, which is insufficient.