Tweet
The following is from a banned ChessTalker who can no longer post here.
Interesting, so eloquent...
August 2, 2011 at 13:18
Mike Beatty says:
To whom it may concern:
Sorry for the longwindedness of the following. I’m simply trying to get it all out of the way with one massive effusion – and thereby avoid an endless back & forth. If you’re inclined to respond but fear an equally long response, rest assured that any future correspondence won’t be anywhere near as long.
Interpreting your inclusion of this comments box as proof that you are sincerely interested in knowing why some people might choose not to enter the Labour Day event this year – and that you might even hope to be edified by such knowledge, here are my thoughts.
In fairness, I should preface my comments by noting that I have more encumbrances than most. I am an out-of-towner & I’m somewhat physically compromised. At first glance, there seems to be much more unwieldiness surrounding the tournament than in previous years. The split venue & the related issue of parking will prove awkward for me. I’m not particularly enamoured of the higher entry fee – but I do recognize the reasons for it & it’s not a deal-breaker in and of itself. Truthfully – gas prices – particularly if I commute daily – and/or the costs of GTA accommodation for 2 nites, are more likely deal-breakers…$$$-wise.
What I find most curious is the time control you’ve chosen and the method by which you chose it. I’ve played the Labour Day event for approximately 20 years and for as long as I can remember, it’s been 40 moves/2 hours + SD/1 hour. I think most long-timers would be expecting it to remain the same. I have followed the posts @ Chesstalk and tend to agree with the sentiment that – even though it’s laudable that you’ve attempted to survey the masses, basing it on a survey @ Chesstalk might not be the most effective way of doing it – for myriad reasons. I believe there are a # of fairly obvious fundamental problems with this approach. Not everyone has Internet access ; even those who do might not check Chesstalk. I find some of the posts @ the site to be more than a little objectionable and, on principle, have avoided the site for extended periods of time in the past. Based on conversations I’ve had, I believe it safe too say I’m not alone in this sentiment. Assuming one is even interested in visiting the site, not everyone can post. The administrators have not allowed anyone new to sign up for some time now ; then there are guys like me…who’ve been banned. I realize that I might be compromising the validity and/or relevance of my argument in your eyes by so admitting…but within the context of Chesstalk’s Declaration of Independence – “not all bannings are created equal”. I was banned per symbolic request when I’d had my fill of Daswani’s ad hominem attacks on sundry others…and I replied in kind. My one & only post was free of verbal & technical obscenities (unlike Daswani’s) – but was admittedly ad hominem to the nth degree. Even if a such a survey was deemed the best approach to determine the time control, there’s the related argument of why it wasn’t conducted @ the CFC site? Bottom line – you’ve made your decision based on an extremely small sampling of a highly parameterised pool.
Having noted all this, my main concern is more objective & fundamental. Again in fairness, I’ll preface my comments by noting that – based on past experiences – I probably have more biases and/or sensitivities than most regarding the following issue ; that issue being time controls with bonus increments. On principle, I have avoided tournaments that use these time controls.
There are financial considerations i.e. digital clocks that cost considerably more than their analog counterparts and digitals without a bonus increments facility ; for those of us who already have an analog clock, it’s even more costly given that we have to make a purchase that, without the time controls that necessitate them, would otherwise be unnecessary.
There are technical considerations ; by definition, there is so much more that can go wrong with clocks that have a bonus increments facility. I would have hoped that by now there’d be some universal acknowledgement of this fact when I’ve read so many posts @ Chesstalk regarding incidents wherein these clocks malfunctioned and/or someone overstepped a time limit because the clocks were virtually impossible to read and/or interpret.
Even more fundamental is the sub-issue of how time controls with bonus increments fit within a venue’s/event’s hours of operation. Theoretically – a game with bonus increments can go on forever. Admittedly if a given event and/or the venue where it’s held does not have strictly defined hours of operation, this is a non-issue ; but I don’t believe that this is the norm ; my experience has been the opposite. In the Peterborough city championship, we are perpetually faced with having to figure out a reasonable time control that fits within the YMCA’s hours of operation. The Y is immovable on extending the club hours of 7-10pm. The club administrators need time to set up when the doors open ; therefore, they’ve traditionally started the games @ 7:30pm. That leaves 150 minutes for the games. Until last year, we’ve had adjournments ; the obvious downside of this is the possibility of using computers for analysis during the adjournment ; the alternative is a one session game of 75 minutes per side with no bonus increments. I believe this is much too fast & superficial to determine a city championship and despite acknowledging and lamenting the problems with adjournments, still viewed that approach as the lesser of 2 evils. The point I’m trying to make is – the only reason we’re in this unfortunate position of having to make such a silly choice – is due to the YMCA’s hours of operations.
I attended Shirov’s simul @ the Scarborough club in the spring of 2010. I assumed going in that a club as prestigious and well-established as Scarborough would have carte blanche ; but even they were subservient to the landlord’s hours of operation and had to vacate the premises by – if memory serves – 10:30pm. Regardless – club members told me that they did have to vacate the premises by a certain hour and if any of the simul games were still ongoing at that point – they would have to be aborted & adjudicated ; obviously not the ideal denouement when hosting such an illustrious player as Shirov! Again – the point is most events/venues have strict hours of operation. Given this – it’s beyond me why organizers so willingly choose time controls with bonus increments that result in theoretically endless games & thereby perpetually flirt with over-extending legally contracted hours of operation. They’re just asking for trouble. Speaking for myself as a participant, I know I can’t rest comfortably when faced with the constant spectre of management suddenly appearing & abruptly asking that the premises be vacated. I’ll admit once again that my own personal experiences with the Peterborough YMCA have probably prejudiced me to a great degree ; but I still believe the issue is universal.
I think these arguments constitute a more than sufficient case against time controls with bonus increments ; but in all honestly, what I object to the most…no….what I resent the most – is this apparent campaign to turn chess into something frivolous. I’ve never lost a game on time. I know how to manage my time. I believe that those of us who have long mastered time management are being forced to jump through all these hoops (i.e. purchase expensive & technically suspect clocks, play with the discomfort of knowing that your game might over-extend the hours of operation for the venue, etc.) – all for the sake of a few people who don’t know how to manage time properly and/or who are fixated with something as superficial as a clock where the time goes up & down i.e. “wow – what a cool new toy…” etc. I may be wrong but it seems to me like those of us who gravitated to chess because we love deep contemplative thought – and who, although recognizing that time controls are a necessary evil, would still like to keep them as simple as possible because we want the focus to remain on the chess itself and not on the peripheral stuff…like the clocks – are being forced to make concessions to the video game generation & their addiction to sensory overload i.e. can’t function unless there’s multitudinous bells & whistles going-off. This is – to my apparently impoverished mind’s eye – antithetical to a pastime as inherently contemplative as is chess. For the adrenaline junkies, there’s a surfeit of events with faster time controls. Using my home club as an example, we have umpteen speed chess tournaments each year, several active tournaments a year…and exactly one tournament that uses a traditionally longer time control – that being the aforementioned city championship ; and as previously noted, even that has morphed into game/75 minutes ; IMHO – much too fast & superficial to determine a city championship.
Let me again apologize for my longwindedness – but this has been weighing heavily on me ; I’ve railed against this for some time now and it seems I’ve essentially been pissing into the wind. I simply can’t understand this stampede to embrace needless complications. 40 moves/2 hours + SD/hour…what could be simpler & more suited to minimizing the impact of the necessary evil of clocks – and ultimately to putting the focus back on chess…where it belongs?
continued...
Interesting, so eloquent...
August 2, 2011 at 13:18
Mike Beatty says:
To whom it may concern:
Sorry for the longwindedness of the following. I’m simply trying to get it all out of the way with one massive effusion – and thereby avoid an endless back & forth. If you’re inclined to respond but fear an equally long response, rest assured that any future correspondence won’t be anywhere near as long.
Interpreting your inclusion of this comments box as proof that you are sincerely interested in knowing why some people might choose not to enter the Labour Day event this year – and that you might even hope to be edified by such knowledge, here are my thoughts.
In fairness, I should preface my comments by noting that I have more encumbrances than most. I am an out-of-towner & I’m somewhat physically compromised. At first glance, there seems to be much more unwieldiness surrounding the tournament than in previous years. The split venue & the related issue of parking will prove awkward for me. I’m not particularly enamoured of the higher entry fee – but I do recognize the reasons for it & it’s not a deal-breaker in and of itself. Truthfully – gas prices – particularly if I commute daily – and/or the costs of GTA accommodation for 2 nites, are more likely deal-breakers…$$$-wise.
What I find most curious is the time control you’ve chosen and the method by which you chose it. I’ve played the Labour Day event for approximately 20 years and for as long as I can remember, it’s been 40 moves/2 hours + SD/1 hour. I think most long-timers would be expecting it to remain the same. I have followed the posts @ Chesstalk and tend to agree with the sentiment that – even though it’s laudable that you’ve attempted to survey the masses, basing it on a survey @ Chesstalk might not be the most effective way of doing it – for myriad reasons. I believe there are a # of fairly obvious fundamental problems with this approach. Not everyone has Internet access ; even those who do might not check Chesstalk. I find some of the posts @ the site to be more than a little objectionable and, on principle, have avoided the site for extended periods of time in the past. Based on conversations I’ve had, I believe it safe too say I’m not alone in this sentiment. Assuming one is even interested in visiting the site, not everyone can post. The administrators have not allowed anyone new to sign up for some time now ; then there are guys like me…who’ve been banned. I realize that I might be compromising the validity and/or relevance of my argument in your eyes by so admitting…but within the context of Chesstalk’s Declaration of Independence – “not all bannings are created equal”. I was banned per symbolic request when I’d had my fill of Daswani’s ad hominem attacks on sundry others…and I replied in kind. My one & only post was free of verbal & technical obscenities (unlike Daswani’s) – but was admittedly ad hominem to the nth degree. Even if a such a survey was deemed the best approach to determine the time control, there’s the related argument of why it wasn’t conducted @ the CFC site? Bottom line – you’ve made your decision based on an extremely small sampling of a highly parameterised pool.
Having noted all this, my main concern is more objective & fundamental. Again in fairness, I’ll preface my comments by noting that – based on past experiences – I probably have more biases and/or sensitivities than most regarding the following issue ; that issue being time controls with bonus increments. On principle, I have avoided tournaments that use these time controls.
There are financial considerations i.e. digital clocks that cost considerably more than their analog counterparts and digitals without a bonus increments facility ; for those of us who already have an analog clock, it’s even more costly given that we have to make a purchase that, without the time controls that necessitate them, would otherwise be unnecessary.
There are technical considerations ; by definition, there is so much more that can go wrong with clocks that have a bonus increments facility. I would have hoped that by now there’d be some universal acknowledgement of this fact when I’ve read so many posts @ Chesstalk regarding incidents wherein these clocks malfunctioned and/or someone overstepped a time limit because the clocks were virtually impossible to read and/or interpret.
Even more fundamental is the sub-issue of how time controls with bonus increments fit within a venue’s/event’s hours of operation. Theoretically – a game with bonus increments can go on forever. Admittedly if a given event and/or the venue where it’s held does not have strictly defined hours of operation, this is a non-issue ; but I don’t believe that this is the norm ; my experience has been the opposite. In the Peterborough city championship, we are perpetually faced with having to figure out a reasonable time control that fits within the YMCA’s hours of operation. The Y is immovable on extending the club hours of 7-10pm. The club administrators need time to set up when the doors open ; therefore, they’ve traditionally started the games @ 7:30pm. That leaves 150 minutes for the games. Until last year, we’ve had adjournments ; the obvious downside of this is the possibility of using computers for analysis during the adjournment ; the alternative is a one session game of 75 minutes per side with no bonus increments. I believe this is much too fast & superficial to determine a city championship and despite acknowledging and lamenting the problems with adjournments, still viewed that approach as the lesser of 2 evils. The point I’m trying to make is – the only reason we’re in this unfortunate position of having to make such a silly choice – is due to the YMCA’s hours of operations.
I attended Shirov’s simul @ the Scarborough club in the spring of 2010. I assumed going in that a club as prestigious and well-established as Scarborough would have carte blanche ; but even they were subservient to the landlord’s hours of operation and had to vacate the premises by – if memory serves – 10:30pm. Regardless – club members told me that they did have to vacate the premises by a certain hour and if any of the simul games were still ongoing at that point – they would have to be aborted & adjudicated ; obviously not the ideal denouement when hosting such an illustrious player as Shirov! Again – the point is most events/venues have strict hours of operation. Given this – it’s beyond me why organizers so willingly choose time controls with bonus increments that result in theoretically endless games & thereby perpetually flirt with over-extending legally contracted hours of operation. They’re just asking for trouble. Speaking for myself as a participant, I know I can’t rest comfortably when faced with the constant spectre of management suddenly appearing & abruptly asking that the premises be vacated. I’ll admit once again that my own personal experiences with the Peterborough YMCA have probably prejudiced me to a great degree ; but I still believe the issue is universal.
I think these arguments constitute a more than sufficient case against time controls with bonus increments ; but in all honestly, what I object to the most…no….what I resent the most – is this apparent campaign to turn chess into something frivolous. I’ve never lost a game on time. I know how to manage my time. I believe that those of us who have long mastered time management are being forced to jump through all these hoops (i.e. purchase expensive & technically suspect clocks, play with the discomfort of knowing that your game might over-extend the hours of operation for the venue, etc.) – all for the sake of a few people who don’t know how to manage time properly and/or who are fixated with something as superficial as a clock where the time goes up & down i.e. “wow – what a cool new toy…” etc. I may be wrong but it seems to me like those of us who gravitated to chess because we love deep contemplative thought – and who, although recognizing that time controls are a necessary evil, would still like to keep them as simple as possible because we want the focus to remain on the chess itself and not on the peripheral stuff…like the clocks – are being forced to make concessions to the video game generation & their addiction to sensory overload i.e. can’t function unless there’s multitudinous bells & whistles going-off. This is – to my apparently impoverished mind’s eye – antithetical to a pastime as inherently contemplative as is chess. For the adrenaline junkies, there’s a surfeit of events with faster time controls. Using my home club as an example, we have umpteen speed chess tournaments each year, several active tournaments a year…and exactly one tournament that uses a traditionally longer time control – that being the aforementioned city championship ; and as previously noted, even that has morphed into game/75 minutes ; IMHO – much too fast & superficial to determine a city championship.
Let me again apologize for my longwindedness – but this has been weighing heavily on me ; I’ve railed against this for some time now and it seems I’ve essentially been pissing into the wind. I simply can’t understand this stampede to embrace needless complications. 40 moves/2 hours + SD/hour…what could be simpler & more suited to minimizing the impact of the necessary evil of clocks – and ultimately to putting the focus back on chess…where it belongs?
continued...
Comment