Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 08:50:26 01/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 07:10:22, Pete Melissakis wrote: >The unfairness of the new time controls lie not in the time controls but in the >environment in which it is used. There are many professional chess players that >have been using longer FIDE time controls for years who have "suddenly" been >forced into this new arena cold turkey. The goose-gander rule can not apply here >because the old-dog rule takes precedence. A better system would have been a >gradual change. For example 90 30 for the first 40 moves (or 45/50/60 moves) >then g/60. But of course FIDE is not concerned about fairness to its members. >Maybe the FIDE authorities should be tested for drug usage. > >Pete ô¿ô I agree, except for the point about a gradual change. I think there should be no change at all - not sudden, not gradual. Playing good chess requires time. Maybe computers are getting faster, but humans aren't. I don't want to look over chess games that have more mistakes due to time trouble. I don't want to make more mistakes myself because of time trouble. It will be a sad situation if/when we see more annotation comments referring to the clock as an influence on the chosen moves. Maybe I'm in the minority; in which case I'd have to accept FIDE's decision. However, I'm not convinced that I'm in the minority and hence FIDE should leave it as it was (3 min. average per move). Gordon
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.