Forums -> Tournaments

Player: United  LyleCherner Subject: Fischer Time Control

2007-05-15 02:36:11
While I cannot support a 'time bank' what may work better for some is an OTB type time control. For example, instead of a straight 3 days a move, allow 30 days for 10 moves. This way you can'bank' your own time by playing faster when you can, and by taking advantage of conditional moves. Time also carrys over, so if you make your first 10 moves in 20 days you have 40 for the next 10. Typically, you re required tomake at least one move in twice the average time, so in this example 1 move every 6 days.-
Newest | Newer | Older | Oldest
1United  Canis Minor2007-05-15 03:14:52
Not bad, I'm willing to give it a go.

What do you think of maybe a straight 30days/game? with maybe 3days/move, of course this could mean that a person most likely makes more then one move a day.

2United  mattias252007-05-15 03:39:51
Wow, i think maybe choice would be good. I'd personally avoid a game that wants to take over a month to complete, but options are always nice.-

3Latvia  Garrulus2007-05-15 04:44:35
I would fully support such a time controll. That is an actual correspondence chess time control :)
I don't like these "days for a move" time controls much, as I wouldn't play an OTB game with a time control of "three minutes per move" without a possibility to "bank" my time.
30 days for 10 moves would be a great time control. :)

"Wow, i think maybe choice would be good. I'd personally avoid a game that wants to take over a month to complete, but options are always nice."
You might be surprised, but my longest correspondence chess game went two and a half years :D And it's just normal :)

4United  mvlease2007-05-15 06:16:29
I'm in favor of 'X days for Y moves' controls, too. They allow for unexpected contingencies, without giving so much leeway that games can be spoiled by the perennially tardy.


5Philippines  Jeffrey V2007-05-15 08:29:59
I'm not familiar with Fischer Time Control and its advantages. But I like the idea of another option in time control mentioned by mvlease "X days for Y moves".

I hope this idea will materialized.


6United  mvlease2007-05-15 09:56:32
Fischer time control actually involves a per-move delay, which is added to one's clock after each move. If, for example, the time control is G60/5, that means that each player gets 60 minutes on the clock initially, and 5 seconds added after each move is completed. This means that the player will never have less than 5 seconds to make a move. I don't think the delay feature translates well into correspondence play; I think the X days for Y moves control is more reasonable and understandable.


7International  damienmanic2007-05-16 06:43:30
This is an excellent idea!! I totally support this proper CC time control system and would solely use it instead of "days per move". Instead of having only e.g. 30days/10moves I think it serve members better as mvlease said with "X days for Y moves" time controls (with some realtively high upper limit to avoid silly ideas of silly people).

Would you LyleCherner like to pull some strings towards sree_rao since it seems like this is a supported feature?

8Portugal  filipepsantos2007-05-16 09:21:20
If I understand this correctly we would have no days per move but only a timebank of 30 days that would be increased after we reached a number of moves. yes?

How would holidays be managed in this time system?

9England  jonny__b2007-05-16 10:42:59
Lyle, you may find y reaction to this surprising goven that all we ever do is argue (we are in a heated denate right now) but I actually think this is a brilliant idea. Especially if we could chose the length of a game.

Mattias you say that you dont like to play games that last a month but the beauty of this is that you can come to an aggreement with your opponent.

I assume that your time only goes down when it is your move?

The current system has flaws and this would resolve the whole time out problem because if you time out over a period of 30 days then either you have such a major catastrophe that chess really isn't important or you haven't bothered to move. It gives you more time to move if you've had a problem of some sort but trhose who continue to neglect there chesshere account will be the only ones to time out.

I fully support this idea although I dont believe it will ever be implemented but fingers crossed and everyone show their support for it if you like it so sree can see some feedback

10International  damienmanic2007-05-16 10:56:57
Vacations could just be added to the "time bank". E.g. in a 30days/10moves game a player decides to take a 5 day vacation, it would add 5 days to the remaining time left from the 30 days. I don't see a problem, especially after sree will change the vacation system so vacations begin instantly.

Btw, instead of X days per Y moves, I think "X days per 10 moves" would be more clear. In effect it is the same, but the latter will make it far easier to compare different lengthed games.

11England  jonny__b2007-05-16 11:15:21
I aggree damienmanic, this uncomplicates things a lot and makes things such as setting your personal settings a lot easier. I dont think both systems shoulld be implemented on the grounds that I dont think sree will want to do both through the technical difficulties and complications but if they were both implemented I'd be happy to use them both-

12United  Wrecktangle2007-06-24 20:55:43
It looks like a nice addition, but the time control with vacation time we presently have works well for me (so far).

Perhaps if you need more time, become a paying member...?

13United  SuzyfromFlorida2007-06-24 21:39:27
I like the way it is now. I never enjoy playing against a clock.-

14United  Ishmael2007-06-24 23:05:57
I've played on sites with both time controls and I much prefer 'days per move'. It is very simple.-

15United  C_Artist_Think2007-07-05 00:44:42
I think its a good idea!-

Newest | Newer | Older | Oldest