Author: Jonathan Parle
Date: 18:55:57 02/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 12:09:22, Dana Turnmire wrote: >On January 31, 2002 at 11:50:26, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>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 > >It was only about 15 years ago if I remember correctly that the time controls >were changed from 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours to 40 moves in 2 hours. I recall a >few grandmasters complaining about that. I don't like the new time controls for >grandmasters although when I played in one day tournaments faster time controls >were welcomed (especially at my level). > >Certainly there has to be a standard for serious chess so why not let the >professional players vote on it instead of some political machine called FIDE? I would actually prefer to see time limits increased back to the 40 moves in 2.5 hours. There still seem to me to be a significant number of games still decided by time trouble. I realise that good time management is part of the skill of playing chess, however even at 40 in 2 I feel that I often "clock watch" rather than totally concentrate on the game without having to worry about time. In any game, you only have to have a couple of very difficult moves before move 40 and suddenly you are left to play at an effective speed of 2 minutes a move or even less. The 40 moves in 2.5 hours gives you that extra margin for a couple of very difficult moves without the rush of making the time control. Apart from that, increasing the time limits to 40 in 2.5 would add a lot more interest to human vs computer games. A fast computer will get very little advantage indeed from the longer time control, maybe only 10 - 15 ELO points if that, but the humans would certainly be able to significantly reduce the incidence of blunders or tactical inaccuracies. We should remember that in the older days before chess was timed, players sometimes took exhorbitant amounts of time to make moves. Some of them just thought and thought until they were satisfied they made the best move they could find. I'm not saying we should go back to this, but I think the extra half hour is no big deal to high level tournament schedules and organisers, but it sure levels up the playing field to be much fairer for all. As for the argument that quick time control make the game more exciting and spectator friendly, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to back that claim up. We can always watch rapid play tournaments in any case.
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.