Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 21:52:05 12/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2004 at 00:11:59, Peter Skinner wrote: >On December 12, 2004 at 23:45:26, Will Singleton wrote: > >>I like the website, looks good. Thanks for volunteering for TD. It's not an >>easy job to do well, since people expect timely results and pairings, as well >as troubleshooting. And, have you thought about expert commentary? > >Thank you in regards to the website. It was not all that difficult to do, but >will be very easy to update. That was the main focus. > >Yes I have, and have been in contact with several GM/IM's from ICC that maybe >willing to participate. > >>I'm a bit worried about the time control. With only a 3 sec increment, >>inevitably there will be games that turn into blitz. People don't seem >>concerned, though, so I guess it's pointless to argue. 50+3 is, however, >>unusual, I don't think I've seen it played much, if at all. > >The time control was suggested by someone else, and was actually favoured by >quite a few others because it would ultimately produce games lasting under 2 >hours. > >Will you be participating with Amateur? > >Peter > >I merely took the popular vote and chose that time control. > >Peter I mentioned earlier that I thought a small increment would be good, and it seems a number of other people have had similar thoughts. The reason I like it is that with a long increment that one 150 move game just takes forever (at a 10s increment it would get an extra half an hour!), and with a tournament as big as CCT there is always SOMEONE who has a 150 move game. Especially if Uri joins :) So I prefer having a mostly fixed timecontrol. OTOH, this means that we will have to manage our time carefully. anthony
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.