2012 Olympiad

[David G Congalton]

<!-- 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 -->

[David G Congalton]

<!-- 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 -->

[andyburnett]

I wonder - would I cause any offense if I said that the number of congresses in Scotland that Joe Redpath attends is pretty small*, not enough to justify not experimenting with incremental time controls?



* I was thinking of writing "zero" rather than "pretty small", but some clever-clogs might have replied that if the Big Bang theory is correct the whole universe started from zero, so zero may not be a pretty small number.

A tiny bit of offence* Donald. Joe does mention "domestic events" rather than congresses and he plays Nat. league/local league/Richardson etc.

I much prefer the non-incremental controls: if my opponent uses up most of their time dealing with my dodgy attacks then they shouldn't be given 30 seconds extra per move to show how dodgy they were - he should gracefuly lose on time and allow me to write articles about how clever I was!

On a more serious note, as Hugh and others mention, if that's what they do internationally we should at least try it with some events to give our players a taste of how it works. I've never played with an increment and would feel like a fish out of water if I went abroad (to England for example ;P ) and had to deal with it.

[StevieHilton]

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

[robin moore]

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.

[Calum MacQueen]

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.

[Patrick McGovern]

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.

[robin moore]

Sorry,

For clarity I should have added the word "solely" in (between different and because).

[JRedpath]

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.

[robin moore]

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.