Yes. To finish in even one day. 15 min and no increment? That's basically just blitz. Most tournaments I see set up for the weekend are 3-4 rounds of 60/10 or something along those lines. You can't tell who the better player is from 15/0 chess. That game is largely decided by the clock. That's not chess lol.
There are 10+5 and 3+2 tournaments organised monthly in Turkey
>> No, you should synchronize your inner clock by practice games. The more you focus on the board the better you play. The clock is just a distraction.
Well, if you can do this, great. I think this is impossible to do with, say, 30 seconds precision (for 15+0) if you're mainly concentrated on the position and not on counting seconds. And I also think that if you glance at the clock like 10 times a game and spend 5 total seconds for that, this is absolutely negligible to your strength while if your inner clock will make a mistake, you can be punished badly.
>> "Think what move the opponent is most likely to do (not what you most want him to do!), suppose that he already done it and start to think. You can often make a non-trivial move almost instantly just because you already calculated the answer on the opponent turn."
>> This is bad advice and also a recipe for blunders. During opponent's time you should think about general strategy: pawn structures, desirable/undesirable trades, important squares, possible favourable / unfavourable endgames etc.
Well, that's a fair addition to how the opponent time can be used. However, your general plans may depend heavily on the opponent move (for example, if he castles kingside it is one plan, if queenside - another) and in a tactical position with tons of hanging points you are just forced to calculate before considering the plan after settling down. And how exactly is this a "recipe for blunders"?
>> Otherwise you waste time calculating things that do not happen
They'll happen with some probability. The amount of time wasted is proportional to the probability of reverse, but in average you'll guess several moves and a good portion of the time will not be wasted. Meanwhile, the general strategy cannot be considered all the time, you should look at some concrete lines to correct it anyway.
>> "It is better to lose on time than to lose by a blunder." Yes indeed. If a player often loses on time in winning positions all he has to do is play the same moves faster, so read just his inner clock to play a bit faster without losing accuracy. On the other hand a player often losing from blunders must try and avoid blunders, but that is more difficult to achieve.
This is just ridiculous. Chess is a mathematically trivial game, that is, given unlimited amount of time, any position can be solved by a simple algorithm. That means that chess only makes sense when augmented by a time control. Loss by time and loss by blunder are equal losses in this augmented chess. If you blunder is just because you didn't saw some of the opponent moves, but the only reason for that is not having enough time to think and analyze the position wider or deeper. "Avoid blunders" and "Play the same quality moves faster" are essentially the same.
Well, if you can do this, great. I think this is impossible to do with, say, 30 seconds precision (for 15+0) if you're mainly concentrated on the position and not on counting seconds. And I also think that if you glance at the clock like 10 times a game and spend 5 total seconds for that, this is absolutely negligible to your strength while if your inner clock will make a mistake, you can be punished badly.
>> "Think what move the opponent is most likely to do (not what you most want him to do!), suppose that he already done it and start to think. You can often make a non-trivial move almost instantly just because you already calculated the answer on the opponent turn."
>> This is bad advice and also a recipe for blunders. During opponent's time you should think about general strategy: pawn structures, desirable/undesirable trades, important squares, possible favourable / unfavourable endgames etc.
Well, that's a fair addition to how the opponent time can be used. However, your general plans may depend heavily on the opponent move (for example, if he castles kingside it is one plan, if queenside - another) and in a tactical position with tons of hanging points you are just forced to calculate before considering the plan after settling down. And how exactly is this a "recipe for blunders"?
>> Otherwise you waste time calculating things that do not happen
They'll happen with some probability. The amount of time wasted is proportional to the probability of reverse, but in average you'll guess several moves and a good portion of the time will not be wasted. Meanwhile, the general strategy cannot be considered all the time, you should look at some concrete lines to correct it anyway.
>> "It is better to lose on time than to lose by a blunder." Yes indeed. If a player often loses on time in winning positions all he has to do is play the same moves faster, so read just his inner clock to play a bit faster without losing accuracy. On the other hand a player often losing from blunders must try and avoid blunders, but that is more difficult to achieve.
This is just ridiculous. Chess is a mathematically trivial game, that is, given unlimited amount of time, any position can be solved by a simple algorithm. That means that chess only makes sense when augmented by a time control. Loss by time and loss by blunder are equal losses in this augmented chess. If you blunder is just because you didn't saw some of the opponent moves, but the only reason for that is not having enough time to think and analyze the position wider or deeper. "Avoid blunders" and "Play the same quality moves faster" are essentially the same.
@12: 3+2 is FIDE's main blitz time control so that makes perfect sense that there would be 3+2 tournaments OTB. 10+5? That time control doesn't sync with anything. It's just obligatory and pulled out of thin air.
@CoffeeAnd420 Yes, I think the main reason for the 15 min is to finish the entire tournament in a day.
I know that it's for scheduling purposes but typically time controls that short are for very, very casual weekend players. Let's be honest: If you need to hurry up and finish your tournament because you need to pick your three kids up, Chess probably isn't going to fit into your schedule long term. Rather than just change chess, I think people should realize when it's just not for them anymore.
One more thing, when is a good time to offer draw (in equal position), if I don't like to play time scrambles?
When I have 5 min left? (in a 15 minute game)
Of course, whether the opponent accepts it is another matter altogether.
When I have 5 min left? (in a 15 minute game)
Of course, whether the opponent accepts it is another matter altogether.
@mathtuition88
5 min left in a 15 game is still plenty of time; look at it like this - its a brand new 5 min regular blitz game. The only time I would offer a draw in an equal position with 5 min. left is if my opponent is much stronger and I lack confidence in my position; even though it may be equal.
Your thinking methods concerning time scrambles may need to be re-evaluated. You shouldn't get into a time scramble with proper clock/time management.
If you know the position is a dead draw and you have little time left, there is no harm in a draw offer, but psychologically; don't expect it will be accepted. If it is, so be it - next game...
5 min left in a 15 game is still plenty of time; look at it like this - its a brand new 5 min regular blitz game. The only time I would offer a draw in an equal position with 5 min. left is if my opponent is much stronger and I lack confidence in my position; even though it may be equal.
Your thinking methods concerning time scrambles may need to be re-evaluated. You shouldn't get into a time scramble with proper clock/time management.
If you know the position is a dead draw and you have little time left, there is no harm in a draw offer, but psychologically; don't expect it will be accepted. If it is, so be it - next game...
"I also think that if you glance at the clock like 10 times a game and spend 5 total seconds for that, this is absolutely negligible to your strength "
The main problem is not the time lost by glancing at the clock, it is the disruption of the though process and the concentration and possible anxiety. When you are not thinking about the position, but you take fright of losing on time, chances are big you will not lose on time, but you will lose by a blunder. When you practice a time control a lot you feel how fast or how slow to play, you do not need to look at the clock. I must admit that I used to use the ticking sound of analogue chess clocks as kind of a metronome.
"And how exactly is this a "recipe for blunders"
In one of the original poster's practice games, he obviously planned in his opponent's time to play a certain move. Now his opponent plays Qc7, putting his queen en prise. Original poster plays a tempo the move he planned not noticing the opponent's queen is for the taking. Opponent plays some other move leaving his queen en prise. Only then original poster takes the queen. Calculating on opponent's time is like a mental pre-move, and that is bad as we know.
"when is a good time to offer draw (in equal position), if I don't like to play time scrambles?"
Never. Just play on. If opponent offers a draw and the position is a draw, then accept, otherwise just play on. The offering of a draw just interrupts your concentration and costs some time. If he declines or plays on you have interrupted your own concentration for naught.
""Avoid blunders" and "Play the same quality moves faster" are essentially the same."
No, not at all. If a player plays strong moves, gets a winning position but then times out in converting his won position, then that is a loss just the same. He should then look where he spent too much time and try to play a bit faster next time. If a player blunders, then he should work on avoiding the blunder. Maybe he played the move too quickly, then he should give his moves more thought. Maybe he made a move he had calculated on opponent's time, but does not work at all after the real opponent's move. Maybe he was distracted, e.g. because he looked at the clock and then made a hasty move out of fear of losing on time. Maybe he missed the pattern, e.g. a fork or pin or back rank mate. It is much more difficult to analyse the reasons and to remedy. Losing on time is losing just the same as losing on the board, but holds more promise of fast improvement. Most of the players including original poster play way too fast: 15 minute games with 3, 10 and 13 minutes left at the end of 3 practice games. If you do not lose on time once in some games, then you play too fast. Ideally you would either mate the opponent with 1 second remaining, or lose on time in a lost position.
Time use should also adapt to the opponent. If an opponent plays very fast, you should slow down a bit to make him play even faster, so that he becomes likely to blunder. If an opponent plays very slowly, you should play a bit faster, to make him think even longer and get him into time trouble. You cannot device all that from looking at the clock, you have to "feel" the time. and that comes from practice games at the same time control.
The main problem is not the time lost by glancing at the clock, it is the disruption of the though process and the concentration and possible anxiety. When you are not thinking about the position, but you take fright of losing on time, chances are big you will not lose on time, but you will lose by a blunder. When you practice a time control a lot you feel how fast or how slow to play, you do not need to look at the clock. I must admit that I used to use the ticking sound of analogue chess clocks as kind of a metronome.
"And how exactly is this a "recipe for blunders"
In one of the original poster's practice games, he obviously planned in his opponent's time to play a certain move. Now his opponent plays Qc7, putting his queen en prise. Original poster plays a tempo the move he planned not noticing the opponent's queen is for the taking. Opponent plays some other move leaving his queen en prise. Only then original poster takes the queen. Calculating on opponent's time is like a mental pre-move, and that is bad as we know.
"when is a good time to offer draw (in equal position), if I don't like to play time scrambles?"
Never. Just play on. If opponent offers a draw and the position is a draw, then accept, otherwise just play on. The offering of a draw just interrupts your concentration and costs some time. If he declines or plays on you have interrupted your own concentration for naught.
""Avoid blunders" and "Play the same quality moves faster" are essentially the same."
No, not at all. If a player plays strong moves, gets a winning position but then times out in converting his won position, then that is a loss just the same. He should then look where he spent too much time and try to play a bit faster next time. If a player blunders, then he should work on avoiding the blunder. Maybe he played the move too quickly, then he should give his moves more thought. Maybe he made a move he had calculated on opponent's time, but does not work at all after the real opponent's move. Maybe he was distracted, e.g. because he looked at the clock and then made a hasty move out of fear of losing on time. Maybe he missed the pattern, e.g. a fork or pin or back rank mate. It is much more difficult to analyse the reasons and to remedy. Losing on time is losing just the same as losing on the board, but holds more promise of fast improvement. Most of the players including original poster play way too fast: 15 minute games with 3, 10 and 13 minutes left at the end of 3 practice games. If you do not lose on time once in some games, then you play too fast. Ideally you would either mate the opponent with 1 second remaining, or lose on time in a lost position.
Time use should also adapt to the opponent. If an opponent plays very fast, you should slow down a bit to make him play even faster, so that he becomes likely to blunder. If an opponent plays very slowly, you should play a bit faster, to make him think even longer and get him into time trouble. You cannot device all that from looking at the clock, you have to "feel" the time. and that comes from practice games at the same time control.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.