| |
BGonline.org Forums
How I wish I had more time to rant in general
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: How I wish I had more time to rant in general (rew)
Date: Sunday, 5 December 2010, at 8:23 p.m.
>> I'm personally pro-clock but think there is not adequate time with current time controls.
... I don't have much to contribute, but I wish there would be more debate and less ranting on the subject.
I feel that's a very important input.
Even though I find it so obvious that clocks should be used, I'm also very certain that we might not have found the best way to use them yet.
We're still relatively inexperienced in Bronstein time controls. Should the delay be 10, 12 or 15 seconds? Should the timebank be 1, 2, 2½ or even 3 minutes per point? Should it rather be calculated per game played? Would Fisher time be better? Should we change controls during a game allowing extra time for DMP etc.? Would we be able to use clocks with move counters to something useful?
I believe it all depends on WHY we use the clock. Are we aiming at slow players only, and what is a slow player? (one that take long beaks to think and count every once in a while, or one that spends 15 seconds at each and every move, shaking his dice long thinking before rolling (even though he cannot double), etc.). Or do we want clocks to speed up long games, in order to assist the TD in following a tournament-schedule?
And when should you start feeling that you are in time-trouble? And what effect should that have? Should you always be able to pick up speed and get out of trouble? Should you forfeit the game when going to slow, or just get penalty points? Should you be able to "double your way out of time problems", by having to stretch your bank time over fewer games? (eg. if the first two games in a long match are redoubled gammons, you have a long way to go before getting into time trouble)....
All inputs should be welcome in the clock debate!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.