Time Increments

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Time Increments

By that reasoning, competitive speed chess should be have been doing very well long ago. Clearly people hope for some quality, besides errors.

Walter Browne tried pushing for organized speed chess back in the 1980s, but the project eventually fizzled out.

Well, yes, SOME quality... but not PURE quality.

In speed / blitz, blunders can be laughed off, explained, and no one takes it seriously. But in slow time controls, blunders are truly embarrassing and humiliating, and that's what people like to see. Of course, the "people" are all chess players themselves and so seeing this makes them feel not so bad at their own play.

If you still disagree, then what is your explanation as to why no one is putting big money into a computer engine World Championship event? Perhaps the engines need to learn speech too so that they can attend post-match interviews and even complain about time controls?

And why do we still call the blundering human the "World Champion" instead of "World Blundering Human Champion"?

People like to say they want high quality chess just like they say they want to see an accident-free Indy 500 race or a fight-free hockey game (NHL All Star game, LOL), but it's not true.

Sure, they don't want to see the wholesale blundering of blitz or of a Class C or D section, but a GM match with a nicely-timed dramatic blunder complete with red face and slap-to-the-forehead: if Marv Albert were commentating, he'd say "YES!", and the murmuring spectators would agree. I even think that's why the WC Candidate's forces the players to attend post-match interviews. "Peter, can you tell us, how did you FEEL when you realized your mistake?"

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

No big money in computer events IMO because there is the lack of the human interest element. People play other people in the main, not computers.

There is a 'fine' difference between gross blunder(s) deciding a game and truly instructive error(s) deciding a game. In fact the latter are more interesting to people IMO, and evidently in Mathieu's opinion too.

[Simon Valiquette]

Re: Time Increments

The addition of increment certainly favored those good at playing endings. That many players got bonus while their rating increased does make sense, but it was a one time rating adjustment that is not significant anymore, and I doubt that the related rating inflation was very significant overall.

Personnaly, it took me a year to really get used to it, and at first I had more difficulties to manage my time (back then, the ending was my weakest point so it didn't helped me as much as it could).

Another poster noticed the lack of ticking sound, and this has probably been somewhat understated. Perhaps it is only me, but my feeling is that my brain unconsciously used the tic sound to evaluate the elapsed time. I remember to have been flagged at least once in a winning position few moves before the time control, simply because I had lost the notion of time, and there was many other games where I spent more time than I should for the same reason. This is not directly related to the increment, and a digital clock could makes ticks sounds if it was allowed/wanted, but I found this aspect noteworthy.

For the Bronstein delay, you still get some advantage to play very quickly in the openning if you think that you are better booked than your opponent, since that prevent him/her from thinking on your time. A similar argument could be made when reaching the ending, so it indeed has a tendency to keep games shorter. Another reason that endings won't last as long, is that it is not possible to play quickly to accumulate thinking time for more critical positions. Also, in time presure people will probably move in average in 25 seconds or less instead of 30, and it is certainly more stressful to have to play with 10 seconds left in base time for perhaps an hour (if your opponent still have more time) without ever being able to increase it to a more healthy 2 minutes.

Another significant difference in the ending is that you can't play a couple of quick/neutral moves just to be able to then spend 2-3 minutes to think about the current position. Sure, you could do that in your head, but very few players can calculate as accurately without seeing the position in front of them, and so more blunders will be made.

I personnaly prefer the regular increment, but for kids that blitz their games, I think that the Bronstein delay is a better way to encourrage them to think more before playing. On the other hand, many clock don't appropriately display the delay (the 2 best approache is to either show the delay in the middle, or add back 30 seconds or the original time, whichever is smaller.

Finally, Bronstein or Fischer, one of the main reason to push it into weekend tournament was to simplify arbiter jobs and solving many issues that have already been discussed.


Simon

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Time Increments

No big money in computer events IMO because there is the lack of the human interest element. People play other people in the main, not computers.

There is a 'fine' difference between gross blunder(s) deciding a game and truly instructive error(s) deciding a game. In fact the latter are more interesting to people IMO, and evidently in Mathieu's opinion too.

Well, you just committed a gross blunder of your own, insisting people who follow chess care most about instructive errors. Where are you going to find by far the most instructive errors? Not only the most by number, but also the most instructive?

Top engine versus top engine matches! Duh! Even the draws have instructive errors in them. And these errors are often tiny, almost imperceptible, making it a truly learning experience to find and understand them.

The best way to find and learn from instructive errors is by constant study of matches between top engines. Yet almost no one is doing that. Not only are they not WATCHING engine vs engine matches, no one is ANALYZING them! Where is the book on Houdini versus Stockfish?

People want the human interest element, and there's nothing more humanly interesting than seeing the reaction to a blunder by a GM. The blunder doesn't have to be gross -- you added that word, not me. There's a fine line between a blunder and an instructive error, and many mistakes can qualify as both.

You said it yourself, it is the human interest element that is sought after. Not the mistakes themselves, but the HUMAN REACTION to those mistakes.

Quick, what was the most dramatic and interesting moment of Carlsen vs Anand 2013? Game 9, Anand just blundered, Carlsen made the reply that sealed Anand's fate, Carlsen gets up and walks away from the board, Anand is left staring at a lost position. I remember Wayne Komer's post on this, he quoted both commentators as it all sank in. Lawrence Trent saying he felt sick, and the woman GM, I forget her name, saying she wanted to cry for Anand! Everyone will remember Game 9! The only thing missing was Marv Albert's "YES!".

And another example: why do people love to watch a game between a rising junior star and an established veteran GM? This is the greatest human interest of all. The chance is there that the young upstart will force a mistake from the wiley veteran! Image the shock and surprise on the face of the GM! Everyone crowds around such a game, wanting to see that moment. As soon as the GM starts cruising to an easy victory, everyone loses interest and tries to find another game where someone who is expected to win easily might be losing.

You are exhibiting the unfortunate ignorance of one who is too immersed in chess to even know what is needed to get the interest of those who are totally outside of chess. I believe it was you who once listed what chess needs to get more interest, and it struck me at the time that not one thing on your list would enhance the human interest element. It was a chess player's list, with as far as I recall nothing for those who don't play the game. But there are some of us who have a better understanding, who know what it would take to bring most of those who love chess AND many thousands of those who don't even follow chess into our tent to discover a new era for chess.

People like Maurice Ashley / Amy Lee with their Millionaire Chess Open and Andrew Paulsen with his metering of player's vital signs are genuinly interested in advancing chess and are to be commended for that. But they are barking up the wrong tree, and the best they can expect is limited success (and personally I do wish them every success -- advancement of chess will help our endeavour). They lack the understanding to know what is really needed in chess: Marv Albert shouting "YES!" many, many times.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

In a hockey game remotely knowledgable fans much prefer seeing goals that are the result of great skill vs. a small defensive/goaltending error, as opposed to a goaltender or defencemen putting a puck in their own net, which would be usually described as more tragic than instructive. True, there is human interest in such tragic events, but I'd hardly call it very exciting - disappointing would be my word for it. A fatal blunder in an already worse position, on the other hand, doesn't seem like that much of a tragedy IMO.

[edit: perhaps we need to define more or less what a 'blunder' or 'gross blunder' is, which may be in the end subjective. For example, I leave a piece en prise about once every three years - clearly a gross blunder. Overlooking mate in two, depending how complex the position is, may or may not be a gross blunder. In common parlance, however, I suspect most people would take the 'gross' part as normally pretty much superfluous. What a perceived blunder is might to some extent depend on the rating of the player making it, as well as a given spectator's rating, too.]

By instructive (smaller) errors I meant those committed by a human, since as I wrote before, it is fellow humans we play in the main. A book on a computer vs. computer match would likely sell far less than a book on a match between elite humans that wasn't a blowout, because we can't calculate nor evaluate positions as well (or in the same way) as computers, and their 'styles' would be harder to explain in depth, or enjoy. The human interest is also missing because a computer receives no reward for its play, should it be victorious. To finish the hockey analogy, perhaps far fewer people would pay to watch a game of that sport between robot teams (possibly excluding if robot fights allowed).

[Lee Hendon]

Re: Time Increments

Walter

I prefer digital clocks even in Sd TC due to lack of accuracy that analog clocks provide
specially with in the final minute since the seconds are not shown, remember ever playing guess how much time was on the clock after a time scramble before the flag fell. I often remember being out by 20 sec on some occasions
.
Also as a TD you can adjust the clocks more accurate in case of a dispute due to the in-between the minute problem mentioned above

Therefore digital clocks (show seconds) should take preference over analog clocks (show minutes) since they show the time more accurately

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Analog chess clock accuracy

...as a TD you can adjust the clocks more accurate in case of a dispute due to the in-between the minute problem mentioned above

Therefore digital clocks (show seconds) should take preference over analog clocks (show minutes) since they show the time more accurately

I have a (Tantar brand) analog clock with a small second hand below the minute hand. When I want to set the clock, I can set it to begin at the "12" or within plus or minus a sec or two.


Tantar analog chess clock
Notice the second hand just above the "6".
There is one on each side.

The down side is that once the second hand goes past the "12", if you want to be accurate every time, you have to reset it by running it for however many seconds are left until it reaches "12" again. So, as a TD, that might be a very time consuming activity. You'd have to do this twice for each clock, say an average of 30 sec, meaning to reset 60 clocks would take ... 60 minutes. Not good. So the digital clock would still be better in terms of the TD duties.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

...
I believe it was you who once listed what chess needs to get more interest, and it struck me at the time that not one thing on your list would enhance the human interest element. It was a chess player's list, with as far as I recall nothing for those who don't play the game.
...

I can't be sure of the list you're refering to, as I may have suggested a number of lists over time. Maybe it's this!?:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...light=interest

In any case, I once did a chesstalk poll that was well responded to, regarding what could make chesstalk members (at least) more likely to want to be CFC members. Only a relatively low percentage of respondents wanted none of my suggested improvements to the CFCs way of doing things. True, it's not quite what you were refering to, but at least this showed that when I was CFC Governor, I had my finger on the pulse of quite a few [non-]CFC members desires, perhaps unlike many Govs. Some respondents may have even been non-chess players, though this seems unlikely:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...ghlight=member

[edit: Fwiw, a CFC long-term planning committee was actually created a few years ago, and a long-term plan produced, but few of the steps suggested have been actually taken, with events such as the CFCs forced restructuring for in 2014, to conform with new federal regulations, taking away from time that could be spent making progress with the plan. Reacting to disruptive events, rather than doing a great deal of launching initiatives, has historically been a problem for the CFC. Here's a link to the committee's final report:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ing-Committee)

edit: one thing I've mentioned a number of times over the years that I think may have received very little attention/execution is that I think established club/event organizers, at least in parts of Canada I've been, don't seem to have [well- or perhaps even minimally-advertised] events (or special sections within events meant largely for veteran players) reserved just for total newcomers (adult as well as junior). Newbies may commonly hear of a CFC-rated event or club by word of mouth, and then get thrown to the wolves as unrated players, who seem to only number in their onesies and twosies in any given such event or club. A better treatment and recruitment effort for newbies seems essential for any local or national membership drive.

edit: the most important change of treatment for newbies, however, would be to not charge them even a significant fraction as much as for a full-year CFC membership for the first event or two that they play CFC rated chess in. Perhaps this is why most/all organizers seem to, without even trying, give up on the idea of advertising to the general public right off the bat]

[edit: if I might suggest, the most serious problem for greater popularizing of our game globally may not be with the main product (standard chess), but rather, the level of services and organization associated with it. Arimaa, by contrast, seems like it may be a wonderful game, but it may have the same serious problem, just in a different way.]

[edit: as a chess master I think I may well be able to master Arimaa to some extent, in a relatively short time, if I tried, but at least two things turn me off about the game. The biggest thing is the fact that there are no over-the-board events or clubs (which I much prefer to online play) even after many years past the game's infancy. This may be in no small part due to the licensing requirement that forces any potential organizer to ask for permission (likely for a fee!?), every time they wish to run an event. The other thing that turns me off is that if I become very good at the game, the licensing requirement would also force me, if I'm an aspiring Arimaa author, to ask for permission (again, likely for a fee!?) each time I wished to think of writing a book. If there was no sweeping patent on Arimaa, it would be different.]

[Walter De Jong]

Re: Time Increments

I prefer digital clocks even in Sd TC due to lack of accuracy that analog clocks provide
specially with in the final minute since the seconds are not shown, remember ever playing guess how much time was on the clock after a time scramble before the flag fell.

I certainly don't disagree about accuracy. My default clock is a DGT North American. Its just that, once in a while, nostalgia sets in, and I want to play one more time with an analog clock.

I've been considering bringing my oldest clock - it looks like the picture below - to Niagara Falls. Guessing when the flag will fall with my old Alpha is even more difficult than the typical analog design, where the flag is physically lifted by the minute hand as it approaches 12.



In my office I have about 10 different analog clocks. Occasionally I wind them all up, just to recreate the sound of a tournament hall from the good old days. While I find the sound of a single clock ticking to be distracting / somewhat stressful, the cacophony of many clocks ticking is quite relaxing... :)

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

I've edited my previous post rather extensively over time, for those who haven't noticed. In particular, I thought my ideas concerning the treatment of newbies might be of special interest for some viewers, which is why I'm bumping up this thread again.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Time Increments

Time increments simply reward those who can't manage their time.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Time Increments

[edit: Fwiw, a CFC long-term planning committee was actually created a few years ago, and a long-term plan produced, but few of the steps suggested have been actually taken, with events such as the CFCs forced restructuring for in 2014, to conform with new federal regulations, taking away from time that could be spent making progress with the plan. Reacting to disruptive events, rather than doing a great deal of launching initiatives, has historically been a problem for the CFC. Here's a link to the committee's final report:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ing-Committee)

One of the frustrations of being CFC President is that I have not had much time to devote to implementing the recommendations of that report. The NFP Act was not really on my radar when I first ran for the job. Hopefully now that the bulk of the NFP work is nearing completion I will have time for working on long term solutions required to move forward. I think the report is still quite relevant and probably will still be relevant five years from now. Which is a bit sad since that will be because we were not able to make progress on many of the ideas suggested.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Time Increments

...
edit: one thing I've mentioned a number of times over the years that I think may have received very little attention/execution is that I think established club/event organizers, at least in parts of Canada I've been, don't seem to have [well- or perhaps even minimally-advertised] events (or special sections within events meant largely for veteran players) reserved just for total newcomers (adult as well as junior). Newbies may commonly hear of a CFC-rated event or club by word of mouth, and then get thrown to the wolves as unrated players, who seem to only number in their onesies and twosies in any given such event or club. A better treatment and recruitment effort for newbies seems essential for any local or national membership drive.

edit: the most important change of treatment for newbies, however, would be to not charge them even a significant fraction as much as for a full-year CFC membership for the first event or two that they play CFC rated chess in. Perhaps this is why most/all organizers seem to, without even trying, give up on the idea of advertising to the general public right off the bat]
...

Fwiw, I was reminiscing last night with my opponent before our club game, and we both had faint recollections of the CFC back in the early 1970s charging newbies very little or nothing for playing in their first CFC event or two, rather than hitting them up for a full year's membership, or even a significant fraction of that (such as for a tournament membership). Perhaps another chesstalk veteran player and organizer, like Jonathon Berry, might be more sure one way or the other. My opponent and I were agreed that organizers should, along with implementing this, try to get more folks into organized chess from off the street by advertising to the public more directly. A few years ago Ottawa's Neil Frarey (while he was still an active organizer) was similarly pushing for charging newbies nothing for their first event or two, but this never came close to any substantial support from within the ranks of the CFC afaik.

More related to the topic of this thread, my game last night was a bit of a seesaw battle, until my opponent got down to under two minutes for many moves in a row in a drawish rook endgame, when he eventually blundered after getting down to about a minute at one point, whereas I had over 30 minutes still. Players may flag less often, but there still are forms of (chronic!?) serious time pressure, especially in the endgame phase.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Time Increments

In the early 70's, a club membership included purchasing a CFC membership at our club.

When the CFC reorganized and hired a business manager and started publishing a magazine, when there was already a good one in Canada, then the CFC membership dues went up.

Right now what is needed, in my opinion, is a doubling of the CFC portion of the membership dues so they have more money for programs. The foundation has the money and the president has the headaches the way it looks to me.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Time Increments

Right now what is needed, in my opinion, is a doubling of the CFC portion of the membership dues so they have more money for programs. The foundation has the money and the president has the headaches the way it looks to me.

I don't get it why you need to mention the foundation and the president with your offer of doubling.