Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:43:56 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2002 at 12:28:29, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 30, 2002 at 11:55:43, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:55:57, Rick Terry wrote:
>>
>>>On September 29, 2002 at 23:16:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 29, 2002 at 16:33:50, Rick Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is the time control in this Match comparable to 40/2 or to the Current Fide
>>>>>Standard time control?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not even close...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the time control would have made a difference in the results,
>>>Larry simply pushed too hard in several of the games, where he should have taken
>>>the draw.
>>
>>
>>I simply didn't like the time control. It was basically "two minutes a
>>move, period" whichi is not too fast, but it is _way_ different for a GM to
>>play that way. IE if you watch a GM play, he plays a bunch of moves almost
>>instantly, but at some point will go into a "deep think" and burn a lot of
>>time mapping out long-term strategy. This time control prevented that,
>>which makes it less appealing.
>
>only in part of the cases.
>If the GM plays relatively fast in the opening then he has time for deep think
>later.
>
>Uri
This is complete nonsense what you state.
I'm very used to 40 in 2. GMs even more. The bulk of the time
you use is the first part of the game, NOT the second half as you
indicate.
Here is what happens for example in what i found was an easy game,
it was played last saturday:
starting with 2:00 both players. a minus sign means no time used
for that move or less than 1 minute.
white: Vincent Diepeveen (2291, FM)
black: Jeroen Piket (2646, GM)
1.e4 , c5 -,-
2.nf3,nc6 -,-
3.d4,cd4 -,-
4.nd4,nf6 -,-
5.nc3,e5 -,-
6.ndb5,h6 -,1:58
7.Be3,d6 1:47 , 1:42
8.Nd5,Nd5 1:44 , 1:40 (piket was talking elsewhere in the room and didn't
hurry to get back)
9.ed,Ne7 -,-
10.c3,Nf3 -,-
11.Bxa7,Bd7 1:41,1:39
12.a4,Be7 1:30,1:38
13.a5,O-O 1:27,1:37
14.Bb6,Qc8 -,1:24
15.Be2,Bd8 1:10,1:01
16.Bd8(D),Qd8 1:07,-
17.b4,Qg5 1:06,0:58
18.g3,e4 1:01,0:40
19.O-O,Rac8 0:53,0:34
20.Ra3,e3 0:42,0:29
21.f4,Qg6 0:38,0:28
22.Nd4,Ng3 0:33,0:18.50
23.hg,Qg3 -,-
24.kh1,qh3 -,-
25.Kg1,Qg3 -,-
26.Kh1, -
1/2-1/2
and after some thoughts whether he could still win
somehow he looked at me and it was a draw.
so according to 2 minutes a move GM Piket would have forfeited at move
7 already. Also add to that that you forget the most important aspect
of time management.
Suppose my opponent has only 1 minute left and after his move he has 3
minutes left. Each move 2 minutes added.
It means that if i do a very unclear move now that he'll forfeit or make
a blunder. He HAS to decide within 3 minutes.
I can give you some statistics here.
I have personally a 100% score in unclear positions (even with pawns
less) against opponents with just 5 minutes left and who needed to make
10 moves within that time.
Now imagine they have to do 5 very difficult moves in a row each move
just 2 minutes!
No one makes it. The level of the games goes down hundreds of points,
becuase *no one* is going, unless it's a fool, to take the risk of
just having a few minutes left.
With 40 in 2 you have 2 hours. That's already hard enough in some cases.
But time management at that level is a LOT easier than time management
in 2 minutes added each move or 40 60.
40 60 is sick simply. It means you must play 60 moves in 2 hours.
Or to talk about the crucial thing: at move 18 here Piket would have
forfeited at 40 60.
Now this was a typical random GM game. Plays a random move in opening
to not reveal his openings preparation (this could have been a computer
versus GM typically too). But in itself this game was not so much time
consuming, as many moves were forced. There are great examples where
way more time is needed.
Anyway, it's obvious that even an 'average' game is already going to
at least for me give a way lower level at faster levels than 40 in 2.
In past times the level was 40 in 2.5 hours by the way.
This page took 0.01 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.