Why would a tournament persist with QPF time controls?

[Paul McKeown]

I note that the Mind Sports Olympiad's 2023 schedule has been published.

I am surprised to see that the forms of the game supported include 25 minutes rapid and 5 minutes blitz.

Why do they not use a modern time control with increments?

[Ian Thompson]

I note that the Mind Sports Olympiad's 2023 schedule has been published.

I am surprised to see that the forms of the game supported include 25 minutes rapid and 5 minutes blitz.

Why do they not use a modern time control with increments?

You needed to click on the links to those two tournaments to reveal that the time controls are actually 25+5 and 5+3.

[Paul McKeown]

You needed to click on the links to those two tournaments to reveal that the time controls are actually 25+5 and 5+3.

Ah, okay. Mystery solved.

I clicked on some link labelled "Tie-Breaks" and got a 404, clicked on a link for Rules of the Competition and found no mention of time controls, and finally clicked on a link for "chess", only it wasn't a link.

[Joey Stewart]

I would actually argue that there should be some more quick finish events as they would be just as popular (arguably more so since the overwhelming preferred limits in online blitz are with no increments).
It feels like increments are used largely for the convenience of the arbiter as there are less disputes due to flagging in 'won' positions but I don't like giving out lifelines to players who have squandered their time with long thinks.
5/0 used to be the gold standard of over the board blitz and if it were to return I'd be the first one to sign up for such an event.

[Reg Clucas]

I don't like giving out lifelines to players who have squandered their time with long thinks.

That's an odd way of looking at it. If there are no increments, then sooner or later someone is going to lose on time if the game is not resolved by other means, even if both players have been moving admirably quickly.

[Joey Stewart]

They lose on time if they have been slow and not properly paced their gameplay, as should be the price of playing under a short time control - if your average time per move is 3 seconds then you average 60 moves in a 3/0 game which is problematic as it would be quite possible to drag out a lost game past this marker in order to win on time.
If it were, however, a 5/0 game using the same move rate then you will average 100 moves in that time, more then enough for even the most stubborn resistance to be broken down in the vast majority of games.

[Roger de Coverly]

They lose on time if they have been slow and not properly paced their gameplay, as should be the price of playing under a short time control -

I usually prefer the traditional 5 0 both online and over the board. I did once experiment with the fashionable 3 2 move rate and checking the move count at the end of the game. Invariably games ended around 40 moves. I think then that 3 2 is more akin to "four minute" chess than "five minute". If it's popular it's because it's a preset on most if not all digital clocks, DGTs certainly.

[Stewart Reuben]

For me, an increment of 2 seconds is pointless. My reaction time is too slow.
The real benefit of increments is that people play better chess, and quicker, than say, 40/2, 20 per hour afterwards with adjournments. I am convinced this is one of the reasons for what others think is rating inflation, although there may be some of that as well.
Of course the thrill of a time scramble has been lost. But you only get that when viewing the game live.

[Ian Jamieson]

They lose on time if they have been slow and not properly paced their gameplay, as should be the price of playing under a short time control -

I usually prefer the traditional 5 0 both online and over the board. I did once experiment with the fashionable 3 2 move rate and checking the move count at the end of the game. Invariably games ended around 40 moves. I think then that 3 2 is more akin to "four minute" chess than "five minute". If it's popular it's because it's a preset on most if not all digital clocks, DGTs certainly.

That’s why I prefer 3+3 to 3+2. If the game lasts 40 moves 3+3 = 5

( 3+3 albeit Bronstein instead of Fischer has been used in at least one Scottish Blitz Championship)

(I read a paper years ago which suggested that the increment should be the same number of seconds as the initial bank is in minutes. All you do then is adjust the number depending on whether you want blitz, rapid or standard and also depending on the class of player. I seem to remember Stewart Reuben experimented with 60 mins + 60 secs at Hastings a few years back. It didn’t catch on but some players, including Glenn Flear from memory, found 60 + 60 a better time control than 90 + 30.)

[Stewart Reuben]

When FIscher played Spassky in their second match, the increment was 60 seconds.
When Bob Wade and I designed the increment rule for FIDE, we had no experience. We created the rule in Brazil that you had to keep score throughout if you had an increment of at least 20 seconds. When we returned to England, we phoned each other, virtually simultaneously, agreeing that 20 seconds to keep score throughout was inadequate. It should have been 30 seconds. A year later the rule was changed to 30 seconds, still with nobody having any experience. Then in the World Knockout in Groningen 1997 I introduced 30 seconds. That took off worldwide.
Australia later experimented with one minute. They preferred it for juniors who had difficulty keeping score. I used 60 seconds both in Hastings and Gibraltar. There were no problems. But 30 seconds quickly became ubiquitous and there was no point trying anything else.
The problem with 60 seconds might have happened if there were a very long endgame. e.g. K + Q + N against K + R + B +N. That can take 300 moves to resolve and neither player may want to claim a draw by 50 move rule. The arbiters might miss dinner!
That is why we now have a 75 move rule where the arbiter mut step in and declare the game drawn. I have no idea why we settled on 75.

[Matt Mackenzie]

That is why we now have a 75 move rule where the arbiter mut step in and declare the game drawn. I have no idea why we settled on 75.

A compromise between 50 and 100?

[Stewart Reuben]

Matt
We still have the 50 move rule that MUST be claimed by one of the players.
The 75 point rule is decided by the arbiter - unless the players have already agreed.

I have no idea why the 75 move rule was agreed at that number.