You either play a really fast or a really slow game. There's no inbetween. 10+0 requires good time management, 15+15 can easily take more than double the time of a 10+0 match. There needs to be some other option, perhaps 8+5 or 10+3, to fill that gap.
you can just create your own time format and play it
Quick pairing gets you a game much quicker and with a larger pool of opponents, so the time controls available there very much matter.
I entirely agree with the OP. I refuse to play no increment games, because they too often devolve in trying to flag while the position is completely lopsided. With the same total time spent, increment games are higher quality.
I usually play blitz 5+3, but sometimes I'd like a longer TC. My next quick pairing option is 15+15 classical, which is more than 3 times longer.
The only rapid quick pairing option is 10+0, which is without increment, while something like 8+5 would be a very nice middle ground between 5+3 and 15+15.
I entirely agree with the OP. I refuse to play no increment games, because they too often devolve in trying to flag while the position is completely lopsided. With the same total time spent, increment games are higher quality.
I usually play blitz 5+3, but sometimes I'd like a longer TC. My next quick pairing option is 15+15 classical, which is more than 3 times longer.
The only rapid quick pairing option is 10+0, which is without increment, while something like 8+5 would be a very nice middle ground between 5+3 and 15+15.
I agree with you. There are four time controls for blitz in quick pairing, but only one for rapid. It's would be good to have alternative for rapid. The problem is that different people prefer different controls. For example, my favourite control is 10+10 and I always use it in rated Crazyhouse/960 games. But you may think, that 6+5 or 11+3 are better for you. And which of these should be included in Quick Pairing? There is only one serious problem with 10+0 - no increment. It would be right decision to replace 10+0 with 8+3, because average length of chess game is 40 moves.
Tbh, they should scrap either 5+0 or 5+3 and make a 10+3 or something simillar. No reason to have 3 blitz formats. 10+0 is a lot of time, unless you get too focused on analysing ;)
Of course the OP is perfectly right with what he is saying. Just have a look at the quick pairing site: We have 2 time controls for bullet, 4 time controls for blitz, 1 for rapid, 1 for classical. Too many fast time controls, or at least not enough slower time controls.
there is a big difference between 3+0 blitz and 5+3 blitz, on the other hand 10+0 rapid and 10+3 rapid is almost the same thing
I mean the lichess platform offers you a bunch of choices if you dont like the static choices you can create your own time control with the settings or bars and put out a challenge...in my opinion Lichess is lightyears ahead of anything out there + new features added in a steady stream.
Big respect from me regarding the development of this platform and also the management.
Regards Richard
Big respect from me regarding the development of this platform and also the management.
Regards Richard
I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I'd be in favor of a 5+5 time control, which is both rapid (above 8 minutes total time) and somewhat fast (usually much shorter games than 10+X).
Would 8+3 be the same as 10+0 assuming a 40 move game?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.