Smarter time controls for tournaments

[Nimzozo]

There is only 1 tournament with increment every 6 hours ! Why ? Does Lichess hate the official FIDE blitz time control 3+2 ?

Increment makes the chess game more interesting because good moves still a strength over the clock, time-pushers, fast-mouse players.

Please Lichess organize at least 50% of your tournaments with increment.

Source

[flugsio]

If that link contains any more important information, can you copy paste that content here instead of the link please.

[Nimzozo]

@flugsio Sorry, I edited my post.

[Nimzozo]

@Unihedro I don't know what's wrong with you, but can I have an answer before you close and delete all my requests and suggestions arbitrarily ? You should consider the web is not yours...

[Unihedro]

There are already increment tournaments scheduled.

There's your answer, and I'll gladly inform you that no one owns the web.

[Nimzozo]

Please read again.

There is only 1 tournament with increment every 6 hours ! Why ? Does Lichess hate the official FIDE blitz time control 3+2 ?

Increment makes the chess game more interesting because good moves still a strength over the clock, time-pushers, fast-mouse players.

Please Lichess organize at least 50% of your tournaments with increment.

Zero incremented bullet tourney. Zero for crazyhouse. Zero for Fischerrandom. Zero for anything exept one 3+2 blitz every 6 hours. A lot of players don't like to play without increment.

[Unihedro]

Bullet increment arenas: We have them in the past (1|1 I think? or maybe it was just 0|1), they were killed because no one played them.
Blitz increment arenas: Exists - Probably too occasional for most average schedules, but most user-created tournaments mirror them.
Classical increment arenas: Likely won't work, but worth an experiment. Also notable is that recently the participant counts in hourly classicals are dropping slowly (but still a lot retaining), so around now's a good time to spice it up, not that I do agree with the idea.

Increment crazyhouse: Doesn't make a dent considering it's crazyhouse. Honestly we should make them all 2+0 and be done with it.

Increment fischerrandom: There are more 3+0 / 1+0 user created arenas, and barely any user created arenas with an increment. Not to mention the daily fischerrandom arenas don't get enough players to be multiplied anyway.

[Nimzozo]

How were bullet arenas organized ? 1+0 and 1+1 at the same time ? I really think it would be more interesting to have 2 bullet arenas with 1+0 time control in 1 hour, then the same with 1+1 time control. I think bullet players will be interested because the strategy to win such games are different.

In blitz, a lot of time controls are lacking in my opinion. 5+2 (or 5+1), 3+2 (or 3+1) every 6 hours is clearly not enough (maybe because it's the only one with increment :smiley: ). User-created tournaments are not very attractive, so I guess they are not enough to compensate. Also thematic arenas are great, why not to make 50% of them with increment ?

For crazyhouse, currently the system is 1+0, 1+0, 3+0, 5+0 every 3 hours. (Why 3+0 and 5+0 arenas last both 1 hour by the way ?) I agree crazyhouse is a crazy game, but 5+0 games are still interesting. Maybe add 1+1 and 3+1 for them. (1+0, 1+0, 3+1, 5+0, 1+1, 1+1, 3+0 for example)

Fischerrandom should be considered like chess for time controls. But to organize them during the same "normal" chess time control would be a mistake...

The problem with classical time controls is always the cheaters. So increments should be avoided here.

[ddugovic]

IMHO increments promote quality chess and limit stalling by low-rated opponents in bad/lost positions (for example, using a time control like 3+3 rather than 5+0, 20-move miniatures where the lower-rated player loses on time finish an entire minute faster).

Having played in the entire ChessWhiz Cup III, I now realize crazyhouse is more exciting if the increment is less than the base time (+2 was too much in 2+2).

[Nimzozo]

IMHO increments promote quality chess

This is very true.

Also, this is important to organize tournaments in a way they don't enter in conflict, if you want to make them full of participants. Eventually, organize less arenas, but in a smarter way.

[Unihedro]

The audience is vast. Figuring out which fields to promote and which limited arenas to regularly schedule requires a better grasp on the players than we currently do have.

[Unihedro]

surprise interview in the tournament chat between Unihedron and a certain GM (to preserve anonymity, the handle of the unconsented party in the transcript is replaced by "GM"):

Unihedron > Hey, GM, do you mind if I ask a question? I'm just curious. GM > haha GM > sure Unihedron > when you play in an OTB tournament, do you prefer time controls with increment (3+2) or without? similarly, what about lichess tournaments? GM > I think increment is better for the quality of the game Unihedron > Do you think the Lichess official tournaments could improve with the use of increments? GM > Do't they use it already Unihedron > Yeah, there is one every six hours. Some users complain that it's too rare.

PS the tournament was a 3+2.

[ornicar]

The reason for zero increment is that it makes game duration more predictable, and therefore shortens wait and increases pairing quality. Also experiments demonstrated players usually favor games without an increment, although not by much. I'm not excluding having more increment official tournaments.

[Nimzozo]

I don't think that to have an easier implementation should be an excuse to sacrifice the game quality. I don't know how the pairing system works, but time controls should not be an issue to make it better or worse. Maybe it's just a different problem. I still think it would be good for the players to have the choice between increments or not. And I'm happy this debate is open.

[Unihedro]

What are you talking about? No one is sacrificing game quality for a easy implementation, but if you want good game quality and in turn screw around with variable time controls, you end up with bad pairings because no game finishes in a reliably predicted amount of time.

Granted you probably don't know, and probably don't care how the pairing system works, "time controls should not be an issue to make it better or worse" is a bad prediction.

[Nimzozo]

That was not a prediction at all. It seems you are thinking faster than you are reading, as you shortcut everything. I fully understand the current pairings system will be affected by the time control. I was trying to say there should be a solution that you are able to find.

[ddugovic]

It seems to me that for small events, pairings quality may decrease unless done similar to how OTB chess clubs operate -- namely, players cluster into sections or groups of similar strength.

[Vinvin20]

I propose to organize a 1m+1s tournament (26 min length) just after the daily bullet tournament. After 1 full hour, players need some slow down ;-)