Time Increments

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

When you get past 1999, in roughly 2004-7 the CFC's membership dropped by about 1000. My theory was it was due to a combination of things, especially unchecked rating deflation and cutbacks in services to members for no compensation (especially the printed magazine). Then there was the great rise of the internet and chess servers (attractive to geographically isolated pools of Canadian players), and apparently there were key organizers in Toronto and B.C. who quit around then and left a void. Not to mention that playing programs became clearly stronger than the world's elite around that time. In short, any positive effect created by the advent of increments was more than wiped out at that time, at least in Canada.

[James Williamson]

Re: Time Increments

90+30 keeps the tournaments on schedule.:)

[John Brown]

Re: Time Increments

I personally do not like Fischer add on time.
I prefer the Bronstein delay. You get 30 seconds or whatever time you set the delay for. If you overstep the delay then the total time is reduced. This way your game will end because you never get the extra time even if you do not use the 30 sec. It is not banked.
This way when a player is down to 5 mins or less they will sooner than later run out of time. With Fischer add on times a game could technically go forever.

I like sudden death in the lower sections the games end on time. If they had increments games would become very disruptive with all those players banging the clocks in time trouble just to get more add on times.. Under 2000-1600 don't need increments.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Time Increments

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?

Hi Paul - I prefer increments, both as a player and as a TD. Time scrambles do not produce good chess and often favors the person prone to knocking pieces on the floor. Refereeing such a spectacle is no picnic.

Before increments, I was generally good at budgeting my time and it was rare for me to be on the short end of a time scramble. But I don’t believe increments have had any effect on my rating, positive or negative.

With increments, you need to make two mental adjustments. First, trying to flag your opponent is no longer an option. I still find myself doing that occasionally out of habit when the game is going badly. That idea just never works anymore. Second, you should slow down and take advantage of the additional time. This can be difficult for us old dogs who have been conditioned by sudden death clocks. I would argue that increments favor the youth, but I don’t wish to turn back the clock. Increments are here to stay.

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: Time Increments

Washington State events often use a 5 second delay feature. I'm not sure what it accomplishes since 5 seconds isn't enough time to force players to record moves nor is it enough time for most players to do any creative thinking. I could almost buy into John's idea of a 30 second delay although I prefer being able to bank the part of the 30 second increment that I don't use.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

90 30 keeps the tournaments on schedule.:)

Round times for weekend swisses in Toronto in the 1980s typically were 10am and 4pm, for the Saturday and Sunday games (the TC was 40/2, with 20/0.5 [or else G/1] thereafter, I seem to recall). Nowadays, at least in Ottawa, with a TC of G/90 plus 30 second increments [edit: or the G/2 analog 'equivalent', as an organizer put it, before the analogs were phased out], round times for these days are 10am and 3pm, with the morning games commonly all being finished before 2pm, thanks in part due to lower turnouts in recent years.

90 30 only keeps the tournaments 'on schedule' only if players and the organizers prefer such a faster TC. I'm not sure players were ever widely consulted about such a fast TC.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Time Increments

The problem with delay is that you can have very different playing times for the opponents.

Example, you play an opening you know very well and throw out 20 moves without even thinking. You opponent takes his time and fully banks on his 30 seconds. Result? Your opponent just spent 10 minutes more than you but it doesn't show on the clock.

For slow games, increment is and will remain the way to go, in my opinion.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Time Increments

I'm not sure players were ever widely consulted about such a fast TC.

We, as AuCC organizers, did not do it directly. We tried to squeeze 5 rounds into 2 days keeping in perspective the FIDE rated requirement for the time control. Players answered by coming to us :)
My observation that only the Open section and some other players need full 90 min accumulated time. Many players finished their games in less than 90 min.

[Walter De Jong]

Re: Time Increments

Washington State events often use a 5 second delay feature. I'm not sure what it accomplishes

Almost all US events, except for those that use increments, incorporate a 5 second delay. The primary benefit is that, at the end of a game, if you have almost no time left, and your position is trivial to win, or trivial to draw, you should be able to achieve the "fair result", and the TD doesn't need to get involved to decide any claims of "insufficient losing chances".

The only event I play in nowadays without delays or increments is the Niagara Falls Open. Which gives me an excuse to play with my old analog clock :) Not much use for these ticking dinosaurs south of the border any more.

[Lee Hendon]

Re: Time Increments

Hey John

Bronstein Delay can go on forever since you can always play on the increment and never flag

I disagree about the lower sections just being SD time controls you will still have time scrambles regardless
of the section and the TC used at least with the Fischer and Bronstein controls its a little more civil

[John Brown]

Re: Time Increments

Bronstein delay increments do not bank time as far as I know. Fischer add on increments do bank on time.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

We, as AuCC organizers, did not do it directly. We tried to squeeze 5 rounds into 2 days keeping in perspective the FIDE rated requirement for the time control. Players answered by coming to us :)
My observation that only the Open section and some other players need full 90 min accumulated time. Many players finished their games in less than 90 min.

For many years since I moved back to Ottawa in 1989, normal (5 round) weekend swiss events were played over 2 days, playing 3 games on the Saturdays (quite a few people took byes on Saturdays, especially in the third round). That was in the days without increments, if not for some of the years with increments, too. Then Ottawa events went to 1 game Friday evening and 2 games each day the rest of the weekend.

I'm not sure how many 'old school' players gave up playing rated chess by during the period 2004-7 due to primarily the faster increment-added time controls (G/90 plus 30 second increments, or the 'equivalent' of G/2 analog). I suspect the other factors I mentioned in an earlier post were more significant for the 2004-7 exodus of CFC members nationwide. Notably, the exodus was arrested right after rating deflation was finally addressed with the (circa 2007) rating boon measures taken by a CFC committee looking into the issue of deflation.

Fwiw, I don't like having the CFC Rating Auditor no longer part of the CFC Executive, assuming he or she is fully carrying out their duties. The rating system is incalculably important to the CFC, if only for business reasons (for which the sake of, a little inflation might not be such a bad thing). [edit: speaking of which, a USCF style 'rating floor' could be introduced, possibly resulting in only some slight rating inflation at worst. A poll on whether people might like being a CFC member more, if there was such a rating floor, might be revealing.]

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

Bronstein delay increments do not bank time as far as I know. Fischer add on increments do bank on time.

I think Mathieu meant that a player can think for up to 30 seconds for no price on the clock ('bank' was an inexact choice of words IMO) if a 30 second Bronstein delay is used. Thus, as he wrote, a player can play 20 moves (or more!) using 30 seconds per move and still have absolutely no time spent showing on his clock, like his opponent, if that opponent takes far less than 30 seconds per move. [edit: whereas with 30 increments, the faster moving opponent at least gets to bank up more time as a reward that the other player doesn't get because he took much more time.]

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Time Increments

OK, yes, it's not technically 'banking', but you get the idea.

With a 30s. increment, you know exactly how much time you have to play X moves (i.e. starting time X/2 min). With a delay, it's a little more complicated.

I don't understand why, but it seems some chess players are addicted to time trouble.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

OK, yes, it's not technically 'banking', but you get the idea.

With a 30s. increment, you know exactly how much time you have to play X moves (i.e. starting time X/2 min). With a delay, it's a little more complicated.

I don't understand why, but it seems some chess players are addicted to time trouble.

IMO a Bronstein delay setting should have some way of showing the delay counting down, until a player moves, then show that player's overall time (for lack of a better phrase) once he's moved, or gone over the amount of the delay. [edit: ideal might be to find a way to show both 'overall time' and the delay portion counting down.]

In a recent Active event one of my opponents was down to 1 second on the clock, with a 5 second Bronstein delay. He was audibly perturbed because he couldn't tell how much the clock was counting down of his delay portion.