Time Increments

[Paul Bonham]

This post is for all those who have been playing tournament chess long enough to have played with AND without time increments.

I don't know when time increments became the norm for tournament events. I played up until the mid-'90s and there was no events using time increments, or at least no events that I played in. The whole possibility of events using time increments at that time seemed very remote. Chess was so resistant to any kind of change. I still wonder how that change actually happened, and how much resistance there was to it.

But today, time increments seem to be used consistently. So first of all, is there any historical record of when time increments became the norm for rated events in Canada (and internationally)?

Secondly, and more important, did any of you who played with and without time increments experience any difference in your results and / or ratings once you switched to regular use of time increments? Did anyone achieve a major jump in their rating once they could play with time increments? Or alternatively, a major drop in their rating?

If anything, I would expect an overall increase in ratings, because many players without time increments get into extreme time trouble and lose on time, whereas with increments they should experience less time trouble and less losses on time. But has this actually been the case?

Did anyone ever do a comparison of overall ratings before and after mass use of time increments? This may be taking the subject to an extreme, but perhaps we could go so far as to think that maybe one reason we are seeing such a jump in number of juniors who achieve GM status is the universal use of time increments, and thus much fewer games being lost on time. Of course, the computer influence should not be diminished by considering this possibility.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Time Increments

I don't think it's possible to have an overall increase or decrease in ratings unless you change the rating formula, no?
Anyway, I don't think it has affected my results much but I do think in general it seems to me that the games are a bit longer. I noticed this at the Canadian Open in 2007 in Ottawa. It was the first big tournament I played in with the increments and I noticed quite a few very long games where a GM would be torturing his opponent for dozens of moves, run them down to where they only had the increment, then "do something". Also increments without a second time control is bad if you are on blood pressure medication. No time to run to the washroom. ;-)

It would have had a positive effect when I was younger since I was a bad time trouble addict, often having to make a dozen moves in under two minutes.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

One player I know of was affected adversely by the introduction of increments, enough that they stopped playing rated games for years. I overheard a conversation in which they (in exasperation) described the endgame phase as one of being normally put into desperate time trouble, compared to the old days without increments. At least one older player on chesstalk has posted several times years ago about his objection to fast modern time controls (compared to slow ones that didn't even need increments).

After an initial period of feeling disoriented (how does one budget one's time with increments in a simple manner?), I adapted by trying to play more intuitively than ever before (as opposed to calculating deeply at several points in the game, as would have been normal before), and by trying to play the opening more quickly than before. At least all the other players faced the same problems with the introduction of increments, though habitual time trouble addicts benefited immensely IMO.

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: Time Increments

I recently played in a tournament, the 2013 Vancouver Open which was played without increments. An incident reminded me why increments are a good thing.
Board One, last round, first place and cash prize at stake.
In a complicated, late middle game position both players were down to less than a minute. In the time scramble I observed pieces falling over, an unnoticed illegal move and both players continuing to blitz moves with both flags down, unaware that they had both run out of time. The TD was on the other side of the room watching a similar situation.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Time Increments

I recently played in a tournament, the 2013 Vancouver Open which was played without increments. An incident reminded me why increments are a good thing.
Board One, last round, first place and cash prize at stake.
In a complicated, late middle game position both players were down to less than a minute. In the time scramble I observed pieces falling over, an unnoticed illegal move and both players continuing to blitz moves with both flags down, unaware that they had both run out of time. The TD was on the other side of the room watching a similar situation.

That. That x 1000 and then add a few more zeros and an exponent.

I've seen many instances of completely uncivilized behaviour with the old time controls. Like playing dozens of moves in a drawn opposite color bishop ending just because the other guy is down on time. I myself won 1 or 2 completely lost positions on time and I won't lie, I did play the clock and not the position on the board! I've even grown to dislike 5min. games and rather have a small increment.

Increments just make sure that the position on the board will always be the deciding factor.

And no, Paul, increments won't globally change ratings. Doesn't work that way.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Time Increments

Increments mean that chess clubs needed to purchase digital chess clocks. All those nice analog clocks are suddenly as useful as paperweights when it comes to competitive chess. And I used to like that hypnotic sound of a silent room, except for the ticking of a few dozen chess clocks, during a weekend Swiss in the basement of the Cornish Library in Winnipeg. it was a reminder of bygone days.

Having noted that, my own results -especially with Blitz chess- are much better with increments added. My rating is probably 100 -200 rating points higher when I play say, 2 12, as opposed to 5 0. Yet both are Blitz time controls.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

I recently played in a tournament, the 2013 Vancouver Open which was played without increments. An incident reminded me why increments are a good thing.
Board One, last round, first place and cash prize at stake.
In a complicated, late middle game position both players were down to less than a minute. In the time scramble I observed pieces falling over, an unnoticed illegal move and both players continuing to blitz moves with both flags down, unaware that they had both run out of time. The TD was on the other side of the room watching a similar situation.

Presumably this game was played with a sudden death time control, as opposed to the truly 'old days' of TCs like 40/2, and 20/1 thereafter (with adjournments possible, still).

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Time Increments

That. That x 1000 and then add a few more zeros and an exponent.

I've seen many instances of completely uncivilized behaviour with the old time controls. Like playing dozens of moves in a drawn opposite color bishop ending just because the other guy is down on time. I myself won 1 or 2 completely lost positions on time and I won't lie, I did play the clock and not the position on the board! I've even grown to dislike 5min. games and rather have a small increment.

Increments just make sure that the position on the board will always be the deciding factor.

And no, Paul, increments won't globally change ratings. Doesn't work that way.

Mathieu, good to see you being your old self, making rash comments with no evidence backing it up.

So you say "increments won't globally change ratings." Poor choice of wording, it seems like you're saying no one's rating will change due to increments. But of course, we all understand that in your limited way, you are trying to say *overall* ratings won't change due to increments.

Well, there have been plenty of threads on this forum alone devoted to the topic of rating inflation / deflation. Here's just a few of them:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ghlight=rating inflation

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ghlight=rating inflation

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...7853#post37853

So Mathieu, here's something to consider, and we'll just use Canada as an example. It's 1999 and no tournament anywhere in Canada is using time increments. Many dozens of players have left organized chess with low ratings because they are in perpetual time trouble and lost most of their games on time.

Year 2000 arrives, and suddenly all tournaments in Canada are using time increments. All those dozens of players hear the news, and they all rejoin the CFC and start playing rated tournaments, with their old, time-trouble-plagued rating. But now with the increments, they start winning -- the superior positions they used to get now lead to wins instead of losses, because they always have at least 30 seconds to make a move, and even for them that's plenty of time to press it home.

And as they win, they earn BONUS POINTS because their performance ratings are better than their old peak ratings or because they win class sections or whatever criteria is used to give out bonus points.

Even today there could be older players who used to lose 50% or more of their games on time who are now returning to chess and using increments and earning bonus points. I'll bet if I came back and played, it would happen for me.

Bonus points affect overall ratings. Therefore increments COULD have affected overall ratings.

But did they actually? My example seems exaggerated, but maybe not so much. Who really knows?

* * *

On a separate note, Mathieu's statement "Increments just make sure that the position on the board will always be the deciding factor" is another way to say that pure chess skill becomes more relevant to final results. What that would indicate is less volatility in individual ratings. In fact, one could look at the old time controls as being a "chance" or "wild card" element in chess results. Removal of that wild card element makes all results more consistent: the player with the better chess skill will now win more regularly. This could actually be a small and hidden factor in the overall decline in tournament participation over the past few decades. The less skilled players will now be the ones to leave organized chess, seeing themselves as having (due to increments) even less chance to win a class prize.

Personally, I would have benefited greatly from time increments. But given that it reduces volatility in results, I see it as bad for chess, despite Paul Leblanc's excellent illustration of what they do solve -- unless some corresponding element of chance were added to replace the sudden death time control. The last thing chess needs is less volatility in results. And yet I love the idea of having an increment to keep me from running out of time.

[Hal Bond]

Re: Time Increments

The Fischer - Spassky in 1992 rematch was the dawn of "Fischer" time controls. DGT and Saitek were among the first to enter the market, and I started using them in my tournaments around 2000. Personally I think the Fischer increment is his greatest legacy. In the Candidates tournament we are only using the increment after 40/2, 20/1, then 15 minutes plus 30 seconds from move 61. I think this is potentially confusing to the players because there are 2 periods where they may stop writing if they have less than 5 minutes, and then they must record until the end.

As for the impact on ratings, it may have redistributed some rating points early on. That's an interesting question.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Time Increments

I believe, increment (at least 2 sec/move) is absolutely necessary for any chess tournament - no matter regular, rapid or blitz.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Time Increments

... Removal of that wild card element makes all results more consistent: the player with the better chess skill will now win more regularly. This could actually be a small and hidden factor in the overall decline in tournament participation over the past few decades. The less skilled players will now be the ones to leave organized chess, seeing themselves as having (due to increments) even less chance to win a class prize.

A useful question to study would be the question of how much class prizes factor into the decision of class players to play OTB competitive chess. For me, a bigger factor is whether I have a good chance to win, generally, whatever the prizes are. If I'm in an open weekend Swiss, and my rating is 1600, I typically get 3 or 4 mis-matches in the event. So I look for class-specific matches, e.g., the 2012 Canadian Open had an u-2000 section in which my results were better than satisfactory. I didn't win cash prizes but I didn't really care; the results meant more to me as I managed to reach a rating peak.

Players that are motivated by cash prizes, especially for the class sections, are barking up the wrong tree. Given the number of hours playing, some preparation, expenses, etc., it's probably better to work a few hours at a 7-11 and make the same amount of money. Of course, sandbaggers may have a leg up on the other players, but that's rather a pathetic way to try to earn a few dollars.

I look for the opportunity to play players just a little stronger than me. I have a fighting chance, it's likely to improve my play regardless of the result, and I get a good sense of my play versus my equals. The yo-yo-ing of Swiss pairings only serve to establish a clear winner quickly in a large group of players. It's not much good for anything else.

Allowing players to play a game against a much higher rated opponent, such as with paying to play a GM in a large event, isn't reason enough to have large, open Swisses. That question could be resolved by simply having an extra "pay" round sometime during the event, unrelated to the general results.

I suspect that both a) sectionalized chess, and b) much fewer cash prizes are both characteristic of competitive chess elsewhere. And they could be factors in higher participation rates. Our culture is money mad, and that ideology infects all aspects of social life, polluting everything.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: Time Increments

I recently played in a tournament, the 2013 Vancouver Open which was played without increments. An incident reminded me why increments are a good thing.
Board One, last round, first place and cash prize at stake.
In a complicated, late middle game position both players were down to less than a minute. In the time scramble I observed pieces falling over, an unnoticed illegal move and both players continuing to blitz moves with both flags down, unaware that they had both run out of time. The TD was on the other side of the room watching a similar situation.

I echo Paul's comments. Between my teens and my 30s, I played virtually no tournament chess, and one of the reasons was the jaw-dropping behavior during time scrambles of otherwise civil people. It would get my blood boiling, and I would never really enjoy even victories. Then increments came in, and I rediscovered tournament chess, to the point that I also got into organizing and directing, and which is WAY easier with increments! :)

I'm not saying it was due to increments, but my personal peak, achieved during the early increment years, was about 700 points higher than my teenager level. Of course, this discrepancy was probably mostly due to being a very poor teenage player lol. Anyway, I would say, I believe I am at least 300 points worse in sudden-death! :(

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

...
In the Candidates tournament we are only using the increment after 40/2, 20/1, then 15 minutes plus 30 seconds from move 61.
...

It might be good if such a slow time control was the standard everywhere, rather than the current fast TC of G/90 with 30 second increments.

It is quite easy to find oneself in mild to chronic time pressure in the endgame phase of a game, with the current standard TC, which matters immensely if the endgame is not trivial.

As one master put it to me, a significant portion of one's increments are spent just in the mandatory act of recording one's moves when in time trouble.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

A useful question to study would be the question of how much class prizes factor into the decision of class players to play OTB competitive chess. For me, a bigger factor is whether I have a good chance to win, generally, whatever the prizes are. If I'm in an open weekend Swiss, and my rating is 1600, I typically get 3 or 4 mis-matches in the event. So I look for class-specific matches, e.g., the 2012 Canadian Open had an u-2000 section in which my results were better than satisfactory. I didn't win cash prizes but I didn't really care; the results meant more to me as I managed to reach a rating peak.

As a class player I never played in a higher section than the class section I was eligible for. I figured I had to earn the rating to be competitive in a higher section first. The fact I had a better chance to win cash prizes AND gain rating points didn't hurt.

On the other hand, Joel Benjamin, before he was a GM, prefered to play in a higher section on at least one occasion I've heard of.

Players that are motivated by cash prizes, especially for the class sections, are barking up the wrong tree. Given the number of hours playing, some preparation, expenses, etc., it's probably better to work a few hours at a 7-11 and make the same amount of money. Of course, sandbaggers may have a leg up on the other players, but that's rather a pathetic way to try to earn a few dollars.

People play lotteries en mass even though I wouldn't be surprised if the statistical expected gain (in cash terms) is far less than what one typically might have in a chess tournament. In fact a shockingly(?) high percentage of Canadians hope to retire based on their lottery winnings at some point.

I look for the opportunity to play players just a little stronger than me. I have a fighting chance, it's likely to improve my play regardless of the result, and I get a good sense of my play versus my equals. The yo-yo-ing of Swiss pairings only serve to establish a clear winner quickly in a large group of players. It's not much good for anything else.

Allowing players to play a game against a much higher rated opponent, such as with paying to play a GM in a large event, isn't reason enough to have large, open Swisses. That question could be resolved by simply having an extra "pay" round sometime during the event, unrelated to the general results.

I think class players might like to play in large one section swisses for the excitement of being part of a large herd of players, and the fluke chance of playing a titled player (for many, a simul does not satisfy). Class prizes are still available, in spite of the oppressive yo-yo effect. I even won a share of the U2400 class prize in last summer's Canadian Open (pretty high rating for a class prize).

I suspect that both a) sectionalized chess, and b) much fewer cash prizes are both characteristic of competitive chess elsewhere. And they could be factors in higher participation rates.

In my experience neither raise participation in organized Canadian chess events. Just the opposite.

Our culture is money mad, and that ideology infects all aspects of social life, polluting everything.

Welcome to Earth. :D

Don't forget the other great obsessions of Western culture, namely raw power and sex appeal. [edit: how to make these other two obsessions work for the benefit of chess? Well, at least there's Chessboxing nowadays, and well-known well done chess scenes from movies like in the 1960's original version of The Thomas Crown Affair...]

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Time Increments

So Mathieu, here's something to consider, and we'll just use Canada as an example. It's 1999 and no tournament anywhere in Canada is using time increments. Many dozens of players have left organized chess with low ratings because they are in perpetual time trouble and lost most of their games on time.

When somebody loses on time, I'm pretty sure there's an opponent on the other side of the board who just got a win in the process. If the increment allows our guy to survive and draw, then the opponent doesn't get the win.

Only one point is given in a chess game. Adding increments doesn't change that.