The ECF Forum currently has a thread asking about the different time controls used by different leagues. As it turns out there's a quite variety both across and sometimes within leagues. This probably shouldn't surprise me. I play in four different leagues - London, Surrey and Croydon for S&BCC; Thames Valley for the Other Club - and there are different playing conditions for every one.
Anyhoo, seeing this post reminded me of something that has puzzled me for a long time. In games that have quickplay finishes why do the rules usually call for x moves to be played in y minutes and then the winding back of the clock? In the London League, for example, quickplay finishes are currently 35 moves in 75 minutes followed by an additional 15 minutes for each player.
So, why bother faffing around resetting the clocks? Why not just play the game in 90 minutes?
Anyhoo, seeing this post reminded me of something that has puzzled me for a long time. In games that have quickplay finishes why do the rules usually call for x moves to be played in y minutes and then the winding back of the clock? In the London League, for example, quickplay finishes are currently 35 moves in 75 minutes followed by an additional 15 minutes for each player.
So, why bother faffing around resetting the clocks? Why not just play the game in 90 minutes?
11 comments:
Why not just play the game in 90 minutes?
The problem with that is where you get players who take 85 minutes to reach move 20. The rest of the game can degenerate into farce. An intermediate time control forces a less uneven distribution of moves over the 3 hour session.
RdC
Also, you get a break. This is a problem with Fischer controls, about which I'll write some more when I have time )(not for a few weeks).
"So, why bother faffing around resetting the clocks? Why not just play the game in 90 minutes?"
This was an idea I floated in the recent consultation on the proposed change to Quick Play as the default in the London League 1st Division.
One of my dislikes about the current LL QP arrangement ( 30 in 75 and then an additional 15 minutes ) is that you have the hurdle of a time control at move 30
(likely to be in the middlegame when things are most complex)followed by a second hurdle of a QP shootout. Why not abolish the first hurdle as Jonathan suggests. After all this is the convention in Rapidplay, and everyone seems to live wiht it.
Other club members, however gave the idea a lukewarm response. It remains to be seen what the LL committee made of the idea at their meeting last month.
BTW I have a sneaking feeling that there is some stipulation, somewhere or the other, that if games with a QP finish are to count for grading purposes on a par with long play games there has to be an element of x moves in y minutes before a QP shoot out. Can anyone with more experience than I of grading regs confirm or deny?
Martin S.
Can anyone with more experience than I of grading regs confirm or deny?
Chris Majer made the ECF rules open-ended a few years ago. Rapidplay is between 15 and 60 minutes per player. Normal play is anything more than this.
Fide rules are more restrictive - you need a nominal 4 hour minimum playing session.
Even under the old rules (pre 2002) ,G/75 and G/90 were legal. What wasn't legal (and now is) was the rate 24 moves in 1 hour plus 30 minutes.
RdC
I think that faffing with the clocks at move 30 or whatever always seems to benefit the white player - it's normally the black player who stops the clock after his 30th move and resets it, giving white a minute or so of free thinking time.
In the Herts league, QP is all moves in 80 minutes. This still gets graded.
Adam B.
"The problem with that is where you get players who take 85 minutes to reach move 20. The rest of the game can degenerate into farce. An intermediate time control forces a less uneven distribution of moves over the 3 hour session.
RdC"
You make a reasonable suggestion RdC but if that is the reason I would suggest it's a bad one.
If a player chooses to take 85 minutes for 20 10 or even 5 moves that should be his or her decision. It should not be in the rules to force him to do otherwise.
I originated the thread to test the water regarding TCs across England. It would appear that the TC that you are required to use is a function of post code (non-linear and random)
All very entertaining of course. Bad luck if you live in X and hate adjournments or you live in Y and need Fritz to play your endgames for you!
John
EJH: "you get a break"
Is this a good thing? Your comment seems to imply you think it is. I'm not so sure - I await your article on Fischer time control with interest :-)
It's a bladder question
I will be very annoyed if anyone starts meddling with the London League time control...
A friendly warning ;)
Simple answer, having a time control allows you to pace your moves allowing you variation on thinking time at a key part of the game. The time control represents a point at which you can then refocus yourself for a situation where the clock is likely to play a major factor in the game result. Objectively it probably doesn't make much difference but it feels like it does.
The other reason of course is that it is not unknown for toilet breaks to be mandatory after the pregame and intergame pints have moved through the system.
Richard
ah. Well perhaps I should support Fischer clocks as a way of tipping the balance towards those of us who have iron bladders but precious little chess talent.
Post a Comment