| |
BGonline.org Forums
Interesting Time setting in Cyprus Open
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: Interesting Time setting in Cyprus Open (Mochy)
Date: Monday, 16 December 2013, at 3:36 a.m.
Why are we using a clock in the first place?
I can think of:
1) To ensure that each player has the same amount of time available to consider his actions.
2) To ensure that a match is executed at an appropriate pace (which equals enough time to think about stuff that you are expected to consider "over the board", but not enough time to analyze things that you would be expected to "have learned from home" or not be able to figure out OtB. As an example: you should have time enough to do a pip-count every now and then.
3) One "positive side effect" of point 2), is that using a clock ensures a tournament is progressing according to plan. (given that the plan is reasonable).
We started out using analogue clocks. They did ensure points 1) and 3), but they did a doubtful job on point 2). Problems were two-fold: First of all, some matches progressed in a manner, where the allowed time to finish didn't leave room for what we could consider "reasonable thinking time". Matches that had a lot of "1-pointers-decided-in-bear-off" or matches that had a lot of deep backgames in them. Another problem were matches that had games yielding a lot of points quickly, which would leave the players with a tonne of time to conclude the match. From that point on, the clocks didn't really serve a purpose, unless one of the players played really really slow.
To mitigate these problems, especially the first one, we introduced the digital Bronstein clock. The result were that objective 2) were met, at the expense of objective 3).
That was a tradeoff 95% of the players (and TDs) preferred. With the Bronstein clock, you're not sure how long time a match will take to complete, but you know, that the players will get reasonable time to conclude their match, no matter how it progresses.
Now, for some reason, you guys are willing to go the opposite direction. You will do a tradeoff where you compromise objective 1) (and partly objective 2), in order to strengthen objective 3). From a sporting perspective, that is just wrong.
-----
Taking a break should never be "a game of chicken". The breaks are there for a reason, and a player should be allowed to take one without being at a disadvantage in his match. With the suggested rule, you'll simply have to sweat out your opponent to be the one getting an approximate 5 minute advantage.
On top of that, the currently allowed 2+12 time control is the amount of time deemed reasonable for a player to use for a given match. Why should players be allowed to use additional (up to 3 times) 5 minutes of thinking time, if they're willing to sacrifice breaks? Why should we tolerate slow play, just because a player remains seated at the table? His opponent is forced to sit there with him for the additional 5-15 minutes monitoring the slow play - not acceptable.
If I'm playing a person in a 17-pointer, who is borderline slow, should I then be happy to accept him spending all his breaks doing pip-counts instead? The net-result would be: I get fewer breaks, but I have to endure painfully slow play resulting in the same finish time for the match! Not anywhere near acceptable. He can take his breaks or he can skip them, but he surely cannot force me to sit an additional 15 minutes at the table, watching him play slow!
-----
Just because a "solution" is easy to implement and effective for mitigating a (minor) problem, doesn't mean it is a good solution.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.