16-10-2014, 09:32 PM
hamish olson Wrote:Graham McKay Wrote:Allowing a player to demand an increment when time is low and the position looks drawn seems like a step in the right direction, and recognises that increments are the natural solution to what should be a non-issue. But why not simplify things a little, and just play with increments right from the start?This hits the nail on the head
The only problem with this is that games can over-run badly. Admittedly very few will last longer than a conventional time-control, but it only takes one or 2 to cause problems in a weekender.
Almost all the events I am currently playing in Czech R./Slovakia use increments - absolutely fine with the 1 round a day events, but the 2-rounds per day events can see you either miss lunch completely if your game really drags on, or a very very late finish if your 2nd game gets delayed because of your over-run in the morning.
That being said, I have been very surprised to find that I much prefer the incremental controls. Perhaps a sign of ageing that the nerve-wracking finishes of old don't appeal so much nowadays?!
Re: Mark S. and his game, I simply can't understand why an arbiter would award a draw in such circumstances - unless he had been told clearly and concisely by the defending side how a draw could be held. Even then, this position has been lost by very strong players in practice numerous times as mentioned above - even when they have 'known' the correct drawing technique - so a draw award should not be a given even then.
An appeals committee ought to be an essential part of chess events. I remember the old Grangemouth Congress had one, but no idea if any current event do?