Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:11:26 10/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2002 at 08:43:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. It depends on the game. There are cases at GM level when the first 20 moves are known theory so the GM can use less than 1 minute for them. > >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. I am sure that in that case he was not using the same time for move 7. 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. having 5 minutes to make the last 10 moves is a lot worse than having 2 minutes per move. I believe that a lot of players do the mistake of illogical time management by getting to a big time trouble and I expect the increasment to help them to use time better. I think that having less than 1 minute per move in unclear position is an evidence for a bad time management. A player should not let it to happen. It is easier to say it than to do it and there are players who fail to do it again and again. I believe that time control of 2 minutes per game+2 minutes per move could be better for these players. > >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. No I think that time management is easier in 2+2. I think that part of the players play better at 2+2 than 120/40 and in another part of the cases it is the opposite but I do not think that there is a big difference in the level of play. If you know theory then it may be a good idea to go for long theoretical lines against programs in that case. Uri
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.