Hi, i'm here to discuss about no-inc games.
What is the goal ? Why not just putting 1sec of increment to prevent things like this game
lichess.org/WuONkJve/black to happen ? I'm just curious about that. I think it's not really entertaining, and in the case of the game i just linked, not very fairplay : just having 20sec vs 10sec in a drawn endgame to win it. Easy, but not fairplay.
No-increment is fair: both players are in equal conditions. One can lose a drawn or winning position because of time, but it's only because he was thinking too long for that time control before. If a player is aware they are playing +0 and spend too much time, it's fair that they lose.
Why people play that? Because most people are not interested for the game to conclude with its "natural ending". They just want to have a fun game. No-increment adds another element of fun besides chess itself - even if you losing, you have a chance to flag, and even if you're winning, you should also show off you speed. And if the game is heading to a draw (bo-o-oring!), we can easily fix that! I don't find this element particularly fun compared to chess (and like increment games more), but many players do.
main one for me:
increment games basically devolve into brainless blitz games as the game continues and player are left with only increment. people dont want to lose on time, so they just make non-sense spam moves as fast as possible to avoid a loss. adding 1 second of increment isnt going to help that. if anything, makes it worse. chess is chess. being able to play whackamole with a time clock on a chess background is not chess.
granted, people may also spazz out like this in no inc games, but at least the game ends. when you have something like 3 seconds inc, the game can basically last forever/at least indefinitely as long as players can make any move faster than 3 seconds. why even have a time control, then, if thats how people are going to play?
Eventually all games are going to end.
Either a threefold repetition, a basic draw, the 50 move rule, etc. It's going to end. So if it's with increment it will get to its natural conclusion.
I rather play with inc. But that's just how I like it.
btw: The captcha mate was a pawn mate, lol
Another question can be raised. Why play with increment at all? if you're going to play 3 minutes per side, which is fairly fast, why then add 2 extra seconds each turn to prolong the game? If you want to play longer games then you should also choose to play longer time controls. Blitz is blitz, and adding increment to blitz is just playing a longer time control and pretending like it's blitz.
All FIDE competitions are with increment now.
Lichess tournaments are not, as if our clock were still analog.
#6
''All FIDE competitions are with increment now.''
That is just plain wrong and a ridiculous thing to say
@Whitedancingrockstar "Another question can be raised. Why play with increment at all? if you're going to play 3 minutes per side, which is fairly fast, why then add 2 extra seconds each turn to prolong the game? If you want to play longer games then you should also choose to play longer time controls. Blitz is blitz, and adding increment to blitz is just playing a longer time control and pretending like it's blitz."
The official FIDE blitz world championship tournament is 3+2. The point of adding increment is to play a game to its natural end. You're deflecting from the point that without an increment and little time on the clock, you get pretty nonsensical endings like the OP has stated. I don't mind playing a quick game, but increment makes you earn your results. You're still rushed, even with the increment, so its not like the clock isn't a factor.
---------------------
@Wolfram_EP I understand your point of view, but I still don't understand why staff doesn't have default increment based time control tournaments (not player hosted tournaments) as an option for players to play. It seems like a poor gameplay design & choice by staff to not have tournaments with an increment. One would think online chess time controls should somewhat reflect real life time controls (real life uses increment).
Maybe because 95% of players enjoy playing 3+0 and 5+0 over 3+2 and 5+3? Also, let's just not even mention that most of the lichess marathons are time controls like 3+2 or 5+3...
"Maybe because 95% of players enjoy playing 3+0 and 5+0 over 3+2 and 5+3?"
What is your evidence for saying people enjoy those time controls more?
ICC & lichess have always had rating pools for 1+0, 3+0, 5+0, 15+0, etc, but they have never had tournaments/pools for increment based time controls.
What you're saying, I think, is a myth perpetuated by the site's default tournaments. If there were more increment time controls, I would think there would be a large dip in non-increment time controlled tournaments.
Can you point to surveys and not just anecdotal evidence to support your claim?
----------------------------
"Also, let's just not even mention that most of the lichess marathons are time controls like 3+2 or 5+3... "
Frankly speaking, it doesn't matter to me what goes on in the marathons. A few outlier tournaments doesn't change what most affects me daily: the Daily Rapid Arena, Daily Blitz Arena, Daily Bullet Arena; all of which do not have increment. Why not have more increment time control tournaments?
Bullet chess is an exception as 1+1 is significantly more about timing out the opponent than in 3+0.
