English Chess Forum

FIDE have just announced a series of what one assumes will now be standard time controls for world events, agreed at a Presidential Board meeting in Chengdu. Here's the list if you want to take a look http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... vents.html

The time controls all have increments so trying to "flag" someone will now be really difficult. Don't think too many people will be crying over that.

There is a very interesting discussion on whether increments are a good thing or a bad thing on the Quality Chess Blog http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/3750#comment-255254

Personally I think increments are a good thing if for no other reason then it stops players breaking the clocks by bashing them when they are in time trouble.

Old habits die hard.

Chris Rice wrote:FIDE have just announced a series of what one assumes will now be standard time controls for world events, agreed at a Presidential Board meeting in Chengdu.

Looking down the list, it's what I thought were already the time controls. Perhaps the only difference is that they have dropped the version where the increment starts at move 61. If so, they are out of line with the proposed St Louis, London, Norway circuit which intends to retain the late increment, but starting at move 41. Apart from not keeping score, which shouldn't be a problem when using sensory boards, having a deferred increment retains the drama of time scrambles without getting into Appendix G territory.

It is the new 3 tournament initiative that is out of step. Now all other important events have an increment from move 1.
The advantage of that is primarily you get better chess played. This is because players manage their time better. Only where chess is a spectator sport is there the advantage of seeing people's hands lunging out. Other than that, the spectators are online, on chessbase or reading.
Another reason for not using an increment is Kasparov's opinion that repeating moves once, to gain more time, is aesthetically displeasing.

When I wrote the rules for the 1997 World Knockout Championship, I had no idea that, once adopted worldwide, it would lead to a rise in quality of chess. I just couldn't stand the thought of the World Championship being decided by the arbiter's quickplay finish decision. Even if the arbiter had been me.

Stewart Reuben wrote:I just couldn't stand the thought of the World Championship being decided by the arbiter's quickplay finish decision. Even if the arbiter had been me.

Hear! Hear!

Even if (especially if!) it is the local club championship and not the World Championship.