Posts: 667
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessacademy.am/index.php?Page=Hotel&Lang=1">http://www.chessacademy.am/index.php?Page=Hotel&Lang=1</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 667
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
0
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p004j7zg/Assignment_Armenia_the_cleverest_nation_on_earth/">http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... _on_earth/</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk">http://www.scotchesstour.co.uk</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 370
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
0
I would oppose the use of time increments myself. For me, this would depend on the right equipment being available,ie, talking digital clocks,with the capability of adding a time increment. These are expensive, at 140 Euros. The question would be if these clocks were not available to a visually handicapped player, can they be excluded from a tournament that uses such time controls?
There are many things to consider when making a decision on this, so I would urge caution
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
I don't wish anyone to think that the standards in our game are different because of incremental time controls. Of course it isn't, but a player who can use it to his/her advantage has a definite edge over someone who normally never uses it at all. If you combine the fact that Eastern European juniors have generally much better endgame technique than we do, they can be a very formidable opponent when that clock is ticking down and a lot of wood has been removed from the board. Time after time I am seeing the same things... opening fine... middle game fine.. then one or two loose moves and there is no way back at these top junior international events. If we are confident enough that this is a common problem, we need to address it and I accept there is no short term fix.
Edit- Steve's post above has great merit and needs to be considered closely.
Posts: 112
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2011
There is enough people who play congresses who also play in these international tournaments, seems like a no brainer to at least give it a try? Maybe Andy and Joe will be right in that too many people struggle or that it'll ruin chess, somehow.
Hence why not just give it a go? Can always change it back if it doesn't work.
Posts: 550
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:Robin Moore wrote; I don't wish anyone to think that the standards in our game are different because of incremental time controls
Is it coincidence then that the countries that regularly use them are stronger in every department than us in chess terms? I personally think that it must be a significant factor in that it allows games to get to endgames, an area where we are traditionally weak.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Sorry,
For clarity I should have added the word "solely" in (between different and because).
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
Patrick McGovern Wrote:Quote:Robin Moore wrote; I don't wish anyone to think that the standards in our game are different because of incremental time controls
Is it coincidence then that the countries that regularly use them are stronger in every department than us in chess terms? I personally think that it must be a significant factor in that it allows games to get to endgames, an area where we are traditionally weak.
They have always been stronger than us, regardless of time controls.
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Joe,
You are of course correct in that other (particularly Eastern European ) teams are generally better than us. I have my U16 Olympiad hat on now and it was striking as you looked down our four boards together how "comfier" our opponents were compared to us in the incremental time control phase of the game. I had felt this was a real problem at my Euroyouth travels last year but it really brought it home when I was able to look at it in a team situation where our opponents clearly had an edge (sometimes a considerable one) on board after board playing beside each other. I am not for one second suggesting this is the route cause of any difference in standard. I am suggesting however, that there is a clear difference in ours and our opponents ability to deal with that particular phase of the game. I think there is enough support to suggest we explore this situation further. Phil mentioned earlier about the introduction of a small increment at the Primary Individual which seemed to cause no issues. I would be really interested to see some "experimenting" taking place at junior events along these lines.
Robin.