- 22 Aug '07 23:21 / 3 editsHere's an idea I came up with yeasterday but hesitated to post.

This may be useful with 0/1 time controls (there is not any available now) where each player is given 24 hours. I thought it would be cool if the players get an hour increment at every move.

Then, I thought it would be much more interesting (for longer hours) to add the 1/10th of the remaining time.

Say white played the first move and black replied in exactly 4 hours. So black gets and additional 20/10=2 hrs. Instead of 20, he has 22 now.

Then white replies in half an hour, so he gets an additional 23.5/10=2.35 hrs, making his timebank 23.5+2.35=25.85.

So the sooner one replies the bigger increment he gets.

Note that if a player makes a move after move say within an hour his timebank and the increment rate will increase compoundingly. (So, the sooner he replies for easy moves the more he can think about harder moves.) Natually, this cuts the waiting time, encourages faster games. A totally new way of playing chess on the internet.

Very competitive stuff.

The idea is to reward the faster player and the numbers and the increment funtion can be worked through. This is a very raw thought and it can evolve with the contributions of others.

Please post opinions.

Kenan - 23 Aug '07 00:01

What happens in a zero-24 game when one guy goes to sleep? Is this game a race to stay awake? I couldn't sleep at night knowing my clock is running. What happens if you make a move after 6 hours of sleep and that other guy moves right away? It would be somewhat easy to study up on a person's moving habits and get a quick advantage in time... and stealth move against them right about the time they stop moving during the day.*Originally posted by kenan***Here's an idea I came up with yeasterday but hesitated to post.**

This may be useful with 0/1 time controls (there is not any available now) where each player is given 24 hours. I thought it would be cool if the players get an hour increment at every move.

Then, I thought it would be much more interesting (for longer hours) to add the 1/10th of the remain ...[text shortened]... thought and it can evolve with the contributions of others.

Please post opinions.

Kenan

If people wanted to play that way, I don't think it's a problem for the site... but it's**brutal**if you ask me.

With your 1/10'th rule I guess you'd have about 40 hours after an open if both players stuck around and pounded out the moves.... I'm left pondering this idea waiting for move input on the subject.

P- - 23 Aug '07 00:21 / 3 edits

Ok, this is not a time control for players who sleep more than 24 hours a day.*Originally posted by Phlabibit***What happens in a zero-24 game when one guy goes to sleep? Is this game a race to stay awake? I couldn't sleep at night knowing my clock is running. What happens if you make a move after 6 hours of sleep and that other guy moves right away? It would be somewhat easy to study up on a person's moving habits and get a quick advantage in time... and steal the moves.... I'm left pondering this idea waiting for move input on the subject.**

P-

Let's give it a mathematical go:

I am white and you are black. I move and you move and I move and you move within less than a minute (just for the sake of this example) and we arrive to the 5th move very soon and you need to sleep.

Either of us would have: 24/4=2.4 and 24+2.4=26.4 (1st move)

26.4/10 = 2.64 and 2.64+26.4 = 29.04 (2nd move)

29.04/10 = 2.9 and 29.04+2.9 = 31.94 (3rd move)

31.9/10 = 3.1 and 31.9+3.1 = 35.4 (4th move)

35.4/10 = 3.5 and 35.4+3.5 = 38,54 (5th move)

Now, you have aproximately 38.5 hours to wake up!

You wake up say 18.5 hrs later and made a move. 38.5-18.5=20 and 20/10=2. So, you still will have exactly 22 hours.

It is a very interesting function because say that same day you only made one move and woke up some 20 hours later and made a move. You will then have 22-20=2 and 2/10 = .2 hrs of increment. Almost nothing. Your remaining will be 2.2 hrs and it will very difficult to raise that because of 1/10, inverse input.

You do not want to spend time on book moves (especially on CC) and you will have plenty time in middle game if you move fast in the opening.

Also, the more complicated move you make to make your opponent think, the better you because the more time he loses. When he has little time, it will be harder for him to increase it too.

One must be very experienced in managing his time control, lifestyle and observing opponent's sleep cycles. You have to think fast and educate discipline yourself to manage your time properly. Also, you must be experienced enough to know when to play fast and when to play slow when reached in a tactical climax and so on...

Faster games, more excitement and ultimately more fun for some. - 23 Aug '07 00:54 / 2 edits

I did some math also, and figure 100 hours if we both make 16 moves in about 1 minute for each of us.. You can round that number down to 90 if you like but were still talking about a 24 hour game turning into a one week game rather quick if we both decide to make 22 or so moves that first day.*Originally posted by kenan***Ok, this is not a time control for players who sleep more than 24 hours a day.**

Let's give it a mathematical go:

I am white and you are black. I move and you move and I move and you move within less than a minute (just for the sake of this example) and we arrive to the 5th move very soon and you need to sleep.

Either of us would have: 24/4=2.4 and ...[text shortened]... /10 = 3.5 and 35.4+3.5 = 38,54 (5th move)

Now, you have aproximately 38.5 hours to wake up!

I did some rough math...

Move/ Banked/ Moved By/ Extra Time/

1 24 23.99 2.40

2 26.40 26 2.6

3 29 28.99 2.9

4 31.9 31.8 3.2

5 35.1 35 3.5

6 38.6 38.55 3.9

7 42.5 42.4 4.2

8 46.7 46.5 4.7

9 51.4 51.35 5.1

10 56.5 56.4 5.6

11 62.1 62 6.2

12 68.3 68 6.8

13 75.1 75 7.5

14 82.6 82.5 8.3

15 90.9 90.8 9.1

16 100 99.9 10

17 110 XXXX 11

18 121 XXXX 12

19 133 XXXX 13

20 147 XXXX 15

21 162 XXXX 16.#

Near 160 hours after move 21

P- - 23 Aug '07 01:12

So, it is not that brutal then.*Originally posted by Phlabibit***I did some math also, and figure 100 hours if we both make 16 moves in about 1 minute for each of us.. You can round that number down to 90 if you like but were still talking about a 24 hour game turning into a one week game rather quick if we both decide to make 22 or so moves that first day.**

I did some rough math...

Move/ Banked/ Moved By/ Extra T ...[text shortened]... XXXX 12

19 133 XXXX 13

20 147 XXXX 15

21 162 XXXX 16.#

Near 160 hours after move 21

P-

It just rules out the possibility for prolonging games unnecessarily.

I have a very good friend who moved couple times in a 7/14 time controlled game. and e has not made his simple 3rd move move for over ten days.

He is moving in other games, naturally and understandably, in more important games. He knows that even he does not move next 18 days7 days + 11 days(timebank)= 18 days), he will be fine and I cannot time him out because at the very last minute he will make a move and he will have another 7 days for just one more move.

The fact is that I am not bothered at all by this situation (that he hasn't move for ten days) since I am a subsciber.

However, when I was a non-subscriber I basically had to play 5 concurrent games and it was slightly annoying.

This situation made me think about this idea. - 23 Aug '07 01:49

You shouldn't play a 7/14 game if you want a 1/7 game... even a 3/0 game is quicker than your proposal. Do the math out to say 50 moves if each player takes 24 hours off per move after move 20 or so. (I've done enough math, but I speculate the numbers are still beyond a 3/0 game in the long run).*Originally posted by kenan***So, it is not that brutal then.**

It just rules out the possibility for prolonging games unnecessarily.

I have a very good friend who moved couple times in a 7/14 time controlled game. and e has not made his simple 3rd move move for over ten days.

He is moving in other games, naturally and understandably, in more important games. He knows that even ...[text shortened]... oncurrent games and it was slightly annoying.

This situation made me think about this idea.

P- - 23 Aug '07 02:35

I am totally happy with 7/14. I love it. I was just playing the devil's advocate.*Originally posted by Phlabibit***You shouldn't play a 7/14 game if you want a 1/7 game... even a 3/0 game is quicker than your proposal. Do the math out to say 50 moves if each player takes 24 hours off per move after move 20 or so. (I've done enough math, but I speculate the numbers are still beyond a 3/0 game in the long run).**

P-

However, about the increment and the proposal: the numbers can be played around.

That's why I posted saying it's a very raw (did not think through all the details) idea and it can only evolve by brainstorming.

You helped it evolve greatly, with your especially first and second post for example.

I am currently thinking, give me about 7 days and 14 day timebank. - 23 Aug '07 04:40i just think that the more varied the time options are the more ways that RHP can appeal to a greater number of players - a good thing. i'm playing a number of 21/21 games and I almost barely understand the point as I have so many interesting positions where i know i'll have to sit around about three weeks waiting for the player to make the next move.
- 23 Aug '07 05:28

Excellent idea! Rec'd.*Originally posted by kenan***Here's an idea I came up with yeasterday but hesitated to post....**

Please post opinions.

Thread 38806 - 23 Aug '07 05:32 / 2 edits

My sentiments exactly.*Originally posted by coquette***i just think that the more varied the time options are the more ways that RHP can appeal to a greater number of players - a good thing. i'm playing a number of 21/21 games and I almost barely understand the point as I have so many interesting positions where i know i'll have to sit around about three weeks waiting for the player to make the next move.**

It would be nice to have variety. In especially siege games, adding some time pressure to control the board would be nice and exciting

Maybe, 0/1 time control games with 1/15th of the remainder increment proposal can work or some similar number:

24/15= 1.6 and 24+1.6=25.6 (First move)

25.6/15=1.7 and 25.6+1.7=27.3 (Second Move)

27.3/15=1.8 and 27.3+1.8=29.1 (Third Move)

29.1/15=1.9 and 29.1+1.9=31.04 (Fifth Move)

31.04/15=2.07 and 31.04+2.07=33.11 (Sixth Move)

33.11/15=2.2 and 33.11+2.2= 35.3 (Seventh Move)

35.3/15= 2.3 and 35.3+2.3=37.6 (Eigth Move)

37.6/15= 2.5 and 37.6+2.5=40.1 (Ninth Move)

40.1/15=2.67 and 40.1+2.67=42.77 (Tenth Move)

And wakes up 22.77 hrs later and plays a move his timabank would be 21.33 hrs. Pretty decent.

Let's see for 0/1 time control games with 1/20th of the remainder increment (calculation shortened):

1st move=25.2

2nd Move=26.46

3rd move=27.78

4th move=29.16

5th move=31.1

6th Move=32.65

7th Move=34.25

8th Move=35.96

9th Move=37.75

10th Move=39.63

etc....

If we plug in 1/50 to the function, on tenth move (if played instantly) each player would have 28.56 timebank.

I tried 24 and 48, which give an inital of 1 hour and half an hour respectively but they do not make much difference.

Any golden numbers or similar opinions? - 24 Aug '07 02:04 / 2 edits

I guess it was not so original after all.*Originally posted by leisurelysloth***Excellent idea! Rec'd.**

Thread 38806

Gatecrasher's suggestion can create huge timebanks since adding the remaining 1/4th increment per move will compoundingly increase the timebank.

Phlab explained this very well above.

It can create games lasting ages in some time controls. One will play fast until the 55th move and will not move before mate in 1. That will drag the games even worse.

I do not think this would be a good idea to implement into the current time controls, I only suggest a brand new time control which can probably work fine with 0/1 time controls.

It's not blitz and it's not even like OTB either where in most cases you have to finish in one sitting.

Not everybody will have to play this way because not everyone has to play 21/21, this should only be optional.

Kenan

p.s.

If this sounds like a very bad idea, I will save my breath. Please post any other suggestions, improvements, criticism etc... - 24 Aug '07 03:03

This is the Blitz format you talking about, just with more time*Originally posted by kenan***I guess it was not so original after all.**

Gatecrasher's suggestion can create huge timebanks since adding the remaining 1/4th increment per move will compoundingly increase the timebank.

Phlab explained this very well above.

It can create games lasting ages in some time controls. One will play fast until the 55th move and will not move before mat ...[text shortened]... dea, I will save my breath. Please post any other suggestions, improvements, criticism etc... - 24 Aug '07 17:21I must say I don't care for it. CC is all about taking long times to think and play beautiful chess. While many of us do blitz our moves here, yoI think what you are suggesting is against the spirit of corr chess especially with a 0 day timeout (then you lose time thinking and get less back).
- 24 Aug '07 17:21 / 1 edit

Not really, in blitz you always get the delay time - time you use on that move back, it's not based on your current total time.*Originally posted by joe shmo***This is the Blitz format you talking about, just with more time**

I wouldn't mind however seeing a 10 moves/30 days type format where you keep all the extra time or even a 3 days per move where unused time rolls into your timebank.