#### Only Chess Forum

1.  Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
10 Dec '11 00:37 / 2 edits
I think sometimes we look at gameload merely by counting the number of games, when it is probably more accurate to to measure game load by the number of moves that will be required to be played within any given time frame.

For instance, If someone has 10 games with a 1/0 time control, they need to make 70 moves in a week. A person with 70 games with a 7/7 time control also needs to make 70 moves in a week- and they have 7 days as a buffer for each game.

Nominally, the person with 70 games would seem to have the bigger load, but they only need to look at 10 games a day, just like the person with 10 games.
2.  Marinkatomb
wotagr8game
10 Dec '11 02:31
Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I think sometimes we look at gameload merely by counting the number of games, when it is probably more accurate to to measure game load by the number of moves that will be required to be played within any given time frame.

For instance, If someone has 10 games with a 1/0 time control, they need to make 70 moves in a week. A person with 70 games with ...[text shortened]... e bigger load, but they only need to look at 10 games a day, just like the person with 10 games.
...hence why i now only play 7day+ time controls...
3. 10 Dec '11 13:16
Another factor is the stage of the game. The 14 games of your new octet tourney that show up in your inbox are no real problem, timewise, because many of us play the same opening moves over and over. Those same 14 games at move 20 takes up much more time on average.
4. 12 Dec '11 05:12
Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I think sometimes we look at gameload merely by counting the number of games, when it is probably more accurate to to measure game load by the number of moves that will be required to be played within any given time frame.

For instance, If someone has 10 games with a 1/0 time control, they need to make 70 moves in a week. A person with 70 games with ...[text shortened]... e bigger load, but they only need to look at 10 games a day, just like the person with 10 games.
I would just like to point out that I feel that this statement is actually understating the difference between 10 games at 1/0 time controls and 70 games at 7/7 time controls.

Given that the opponent magically moves immediately after you make your move, you will make a minimum of 70 moves per week in both situations. Minimum because you could make multiple moves a day/week if you feel like it.

Given that the opponent takes full advantage of the time controls, you still have to make 30-40 moves a week without losing on time with 10 games at 1/0 time controls, but with 70 games at 7/7 time controls, you will alternate between making 0 moves a week and 70 moves a week. Of course, this is assuming that your opponents all make their moves simultaneously, which is an unlikely event, but draws out the differences.

Personally I feel that making 70 moves a week, and keeping track of 70 moves even at a slow time control, is far more difficult than 70 moves a week in 10 games at a faster time control. Not only that, but under your fast time control, you make your moves consistently, probably always somewhere around 20-50 moves a week, while under the slower time controls, you may have to make lots of moves some weeks and few moves other weeks.
5.  Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian
13 Dec '11 05:02
Originally posted by range blasts
I would just like to point out that I feel that this statement is actually understating the difference between 10 games at 1/0 time controls and 70 games at 7/7 time controls.

Given that the opponent magically moves immediately after you make your move, you will make a minimum of 70 moves per week in both situations. Minimum because you could make mu ...[text shortened]... e slower time controls, you may have to make lots of moves some weeks and few moves other weeks.
Great points, which reinforce the idea that merely looking at the number of games tells us little about a person's actual load.
6.  Marinkatomb
wotagr8game
13 Dec '11 06:50
Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Great points, which reinforce the idea that merely looking at the number of games tells us little about a person's actual load.
I never look to see how many games my opponent is playing, it makes no difference to the amount of time i put into my move. Calculating the correct game load for myself however, now there's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow! I'm coming up to 8 years on this site and only now am i starting to manage my time properly. All the discussion so far is about working out how many moves you make a day/week, but what about when you don't want to move? I absolutley hate having to move each day. There is nothing worse than going out for the weekend and suddenly getting this nagging thought at the back of your head when you're hung over on someone's sofa watching movies on a sunday afternoon..."oh no, did i move in that tricky game on thursday or friday? Wonder if my times run out." I've left this site three times beacuase of that, i call it correspondence stress, the only cure i've found so far is playing 7+ day time controls so you can update all your games and be happy that you definitely have at least a week before you have to do anything.
7.  nimzo5
Ronin
13 Dec '11 11:58
I would add that level of opposition is a key factor in game load as well. Twenty games vs 2200+ players is about = to playing 100 games vs 1600s for me.

I think 3/7 is just about the perfect time control. It's long enough to give some flexibility but not so long that you forget what you were doing in the game because its been 15 days...
8. 13 Dec '11 13:48
Originally posted by nimzo5
I think 3/7 is just about the perfect time control. It's long enough to give some flexibility but not so long that you forget what you were doing in the game because its been 15 days...[/b]
Indeed, it fits perfectly with the way our lives are structured in weeks. 3 days timeout allows to concentrate on other things during the weekend, and the timebank of 7 days is enough to span a week of vacation.