Author: Stuzzi Kadent
Date: 15:01:03 09/05/02
I do not play chess tournaments, but am aware of various time controls, and the perceived demand in the professional world (marketing, if not playing) for shorter time controls. I recognise it would be better to do away with adjournments because computers and databases deal with them too efficiently. But I think it is important that in major tournaments the players have enough time to produce games that invite analysis and stand for quality. I would NOT make World championship contenders play blitz play-offs. I wonder if the advance of computers is encroaching on the attitude of organisers- to paraphrase: "Well, we know that computers are the ultimate masters of chess, so striving for ultimate quality from these games is not an issue, only that we attract strong players". I really do not think World Championships, Interzonals, and the best tournaments such as Linares should give in to hosting chess games that have hardly a life beyond the tournament rooms because the players have not had enough time to create games that bear scrutiny. How many hours can we expect chess players to sit at a board? Is chess at the old time controls of 40 in 120 minutes simply out of tune with the modern world? And are Fischer clocks part of the answer? I like the idea of the Fischer clock myself and have played several games under it today. How about 90 minutes plus 30 seconds a move? It provides for 60 moves in two hours, avoids mad time scrambles, but the increment is small enough to discourage an entirely lackadaisical approach to the clock.
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.