well learn to live with it anyway. In OTB games without increment (or delay in nort america based on this discusion) are practically only time controls being used. In all format blitz/rapid/classic. Online for some reason prefers still times without increments but real chess happens on real boards. Normal OTB weekend tournament has 90/30 times ans 5 hours between rounds if two rounds are on same day. I cant recall round being delayd. On some occasions some one very short lunch break
@wasilix
Oh wow, that's wild! I did not know any of that.
I remember when GK was playing competitively.
At no point, from late 1990s to 2009 when I followed chess coverage semi-diligently, do I ever remember seeing a delay format.
I suppose it's possible that it escaped my notice somehow, or that I don't remember it, but I didn't think that GK ever really played a delay format?!
I thought that he came out of retirement only to find a weird and funny time control that he wasn't used to, and one that was critically different in the one area where it actually matters.
The first time I ever heard about "delay" was a few years back when I thought that they first rolled it out.
I remember them asking the players what they thought about it.
It really seemed like it was brand new to everyone, and it was certainly new to me.
Be that as it may, in light of the information you shared, then I'll just use my own empirically verified data with the matter, where I'm confident I wouldn't have to go back further than my last 50 games in order to find a dozen instances where I had sufficiently complicated (winning) positions, with 1-2 minutes on my clock, where my opponents had 10 minutes to try to survive the problems in their position.
Positions where without being reimbursed through increments, I probably wouldn't have survived.
Oh wow, that's wild! I did not know any of that.
I remember when GK was playing competitively.
At no point, from late 1990s to 2009 when I followed chess coverage semi-diligently, do I ever remember seeing a delay format.
I suppose it's possible that it escaped my notice somehow, or that I don't remember it, but I didn't think that GK ever really played a delay format?!
I thought that he came out of retirement only to find a weird and funny time control that he wasn't used to, and one that was critically different in the one area where it actually matters.
The first time I ever heard about "delay" was a few years back when I thought that they first rolled it out.
I remember them asking the players what they thought about it.
It really seemed like it was brand new to everyone, and it was certainly new to me.
Be that as it may, in light of the information you shared, then I'll just use my own empirically verified data with the matter, where I'm confident I wouldn't have to go back further than my last 50 games in order to find a dozen instances where I had sufficiently complicated (winning) positions, with 1-2 minutes on my clock, where my opponents had 10 minutes to try to survive the problems in their position.
Positions where without being reimbursed through increments, I probably wouldn't have survived.
@Onyx_Chess to be honest I can't find a prove of my own words, but possibly because I heard about it from Sergei Shipov who used to be Kasparov's second long time ago.
In believe, delay used to be fairly competitive in terms of popularity with increment back when it first entered the scene. According to the wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_clock) it took place around 1994-1995 or shortly after. Back then at least some of the top tournaments were played using delay, and I believe that's when Kasparov was mostly advocating for it. I've heard of a game (not sure who was the opponent, my memory suggests that it might have Nigel Short or Ilya Smirin, but honestly I'm not sure it's either of them) played with a 3-second delay, in which Garry Kasparov was playing an extremely complicated position having just 8 seconds on the clock. After dust settled, he was still in winning position, and still had 8 seconds on the clock.
Now that I'm trying to recall the source, I believe I really heard it from Sergey Shipov at some point, but sadly I can't provide any substantial evidence.
Anyway, excuse me, I'm far off-topic now.
In essence, delay allows one to play on in zeitnot, but less forgiving than increment. Also, in internet chess, it would remove time-related incentives for pre-moves, which is good in my opinion.
I personally think, that increment being more forgiving is better for internet chess as it's more casual than OTB chess. But seeing the original poster's situation, I think it's understandable to want a delay option. The question remains though - what would such an addition mean for wait times, and it's a legitimate concern.
In believe, delay used to be fairly competitive in terms of popularity with increment back when it first entered the scene. According to the wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_clock) it took place around 1994-1995 or shortly after. Back then at least some of the top tournaments were played using delay, and I believe that's when Kasparov was mostly advocating for it. I've heard of a game (not sure who was the opponent, my memory suggests that it might have Nigel Short or Ilya Smirin, but honestly I'm not sure it's either of them) played with a 3-second delay, in which Garry Kasparov was playing an extremely complicated position having just 8 seconds on the clock. After dust settled, he was still in winning position, and still had 8 seconds on the clock.
Now that I'm trying to recall the source, I believe I really heard it from Sergey Shipov at some point, but sadly I can't provide any substantial evidence.
Anyway, excuse me, I'm far off-topic now.
In essence, delay allows one to play on in zeitnot, but less forgiving than increment. Also, in internet chess, it would remove time-related incentives for pre-moves, which is good in my opinion.
I personally think, that increment being more forgiving is better for internet chess as it's more casual than OTB chess. But seeing the original poster's situation, I think it's understandable to want a delay option. The question remains though - what would such an addition mean for wait times, and it's a legitimate concern.
@wasilix
Those are valid issues that you've raised in the latter half of #23.
@jonesmh
"Many of the arguments I hear I've heard before when they suggested shortening the time control: Not enough time to think. The quality of chess hasn't deteriorated, but has actually improved."
I do not understand this as a fact. What area of "quality" are you referring to?
Everyone knows that the quality deteriorates when we move from standard to rapid, and deteriorates further from rapid to blitz, and deteriorates further from blitz to bullet.
Shortening the clock even further, and giving the players even less time to think, will be subject to this exact same rule of deterioration and for the exact same reasons.
With that said, I found one perfectly salient reason to implement delays in OTB tournaments instead of increments, and it makes perfect sense:
"I've always assumed that the USCF primarily uses delay because most USCF events are Swiss system tournaments with multiple rounds per day, and it's more important to make the ending time of each round more predictable, and not have to allow for a lot of time between rounds. When you use increment, it's more difficult to plan a schedule, and scheduling conservatively by allowing for a lot of time between rounds may leave a lot of people bored and impatient waiting for their next game to start." - Some Guy That Accidentally Found Himself Saying Smart Things On A Stupid Site.
Those are valid issues that you've raised in the latter half of #23.
@jonesmh
"Many of the arguments I hear I've heard before when they suggested shortening the time control: Not enough time to think. The quality of chess hasn't deteriorated, but has actually improved."
I do not understand this as a fact. What area of "quality" are you referring to?
Everyone knows that the quality deteriorates when we move from standard to rapid, and deteriorates further from rapid to blitz, and deteriorates further from blitz to bullet.
Shortening the clock even further, and giving the players even less time to think, will be subject to this exact same rule of deterioration and for the exact same reasons.
With that said, I found one perfectly salient reason to implement delays in OTB tournaments instead of increments, and it makes perfect sense:
"I've always assumed that the USCF primarily uses delay because most USCF events are Swiss system tournaments with multiple rounds per day, and it's more important to make the ending time of each round more predictable, and not have to allow for a lot of time between rounds. When you use increment, it's more difficult to plan a schedule, and scheduling conservatively by allowing for a lot of time between rounds may leave a lot of people bored and impatient waiting for their next game to start." - Some Guy That Accidentally Found Himself Saying Smart Things On A Stupid Site.
@Onyx_Chess
Back in the olden days, world class chess was played at 40/150. The current time control is 40/110. This is a shorter time control and most agree that the quality of chess (as a whole and in all areas) has improved. I'm not referring to the extreme shortening that you posted, but the general shortening that has already happened. The rule of diminishing returns will have an effect, but it's not always in effect.
Back in the olden days, world class chess was played at 40/150. The current time control is 40/110. This is a shorter time control and most agree that the quality of chess (as a whole and in all areas) has improved. I'm not referring to the extreme shortening that you posted, but the general shortening that has already happened. The rule of diminishing returns will have an effect, but it's not always in effect.
In 2020 WCC match:
"The time control for each game is 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 61."
handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/FWCM2020.pdf
A bit weird that they don't have increment in the first two phases.
In 2020 candidates tournament:
" The time control for each game is: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 50 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 1."
Thats also 40/120 and then 20/60.
The girls in the acutal running WCC match play this short:
"The time control for each game is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 1."
But i think 100 minutes + 30 inc = 120 minutes is standard at world class chess.
"The time control for each game is 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 61."
handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/FWCM2020.pdf
A bit weird that they don't have increment in the first two phases.
In 2020 candidates tournament:
" The time control for each game is: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 50 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 1."
Thats also 40/120 and then 20/60.
The girls in the acutal running WCC match play this short:
"The time control for each game is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from move 1."
But i think 100 minutes + 30 inc = 120 minutes is standard at world class chess.
@jonesmh
[[["I don't like having more time at the end of the game than I started with."]]]
Why not?
How does this hurt the quality of your chess?
Why not just play bullet?
[[["Many of the arguments I hear I've heard before when they suggested shortening the time control: Not enough time to think. The quality of chess hasn't deteriorated, but has actually improved...
...Back in the olden days, world class chess was played at 40/150. The current time control is 40/110. This is a shorter time control and most agree that the quality of chess (as a whole and in all areas) has improved."]]]
This implies causation between shortening the time and a better quality of play, where there is merely correlation.
The causative reasons for play improving, between the olden days and today, obviously have little/nothing to do with shortening the clock.
On the other hand, if games were shorter decades ago and are longer now, then the case for causation would be crystal clear and legitimate.
The idea that people with 10 0 have an advantage against people with 10 10, must be as backwards as it sounds.
The idea that people with 10 0 play a better quality game than those with 10 10, must be as backwards as it sounds.
[[["I don't like having more time at the end of the game than I started with."]]]
Why not?
How does this hurt the quality of your chess?
Why not just play bullet?
[[["Many of the arguments I hear I've heard before when they suggested shortening the time control: Not enough time to think. The quality of chess hasn't deteriorated, but has actually improved...
...Back in the olden days, world class chess was played at 40/150. The current time control is 40/110. This is a shorter time control and most agree that the quality of chess (as a whole and in all areas) has improved."]]]
This implies causation between shortening the time and a better quality of play, where there is merely correlation.
The causative reasons for play improving, between the olden days and today, obviously have little/nothing to do with shortening the clock.
On the other hand, if games were shorter decades ago and are longer now, then the case for causation would be crystal clear and legitimate.
The idea that people with 10 0 have an advantage against people with 10 10, must be as backwards as it sounds.
The idea that people with 10 0 play a better quality game than those with 10 10, must be as backwards as it sounds.
@Onyx_Chess
When they were discussing shortening the time controls, people thought that would decrease the quality of chess. Stating that this prophecy did not come to fruition doesn't imply anything. You made an inference just to support your POV. The rest of your argument is just another example of reductio ad absurdum.
When they were discussing shortening the time controls, people thought that would decrease the quality of chess. Stating that this prophecy did not come to fruition doesn't imply anything. You made an inference just to support your POV. The rest of your argument is just another example of reductio ad absurdum.
Shortening time controls did decrease the quality of the chess games. Other elements during the same time span (like better preparation) might have counteracted this effect and led to an increased overall quality, but the shorter TC by itself can have done nothing but decrease quality.
@Alayan
Thank you for explaining the logic and making it plain.
Sometimes I have trouble communicating even the most obvious of logic.
Thank you for explaining the logic and making it plain.
Sometimes I have trouble communicating even the most obvious of logic.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.