Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

45+45 is a bad time control

It would be a step in the right direction. However a ratio of base:increment of at least 2:1 or preferably 3:1 (when expressed as mins:secs) seems optimal for most purposes for me, In terms of simultaneously minimising the effect of crazy time scrambles and the risk of unusual excessive game length. Ok, I know 15+10, 5+3 and 3+2 are quite common time controls too. I just think that even they could be slightly improved. Of course it does also depend on the situation - the 8:1 ratio of White Rose's 80+10 is necessary when there's a really tight constraint on game length. And I know chess.com recently changed to 3+0 for some of the blitz tournaments specifically to eliminate the excessively long games.

It would be a step in the right direction. However a ratio of base:increment of at least 2:1 or preferably 3:1 (when expressed as mins:secs) seems optimal for most purposes for me, In terms of simultaneously minimising the effect of crazy time scrambles and the risk of unusual excessive game length. Ok, I know 15+10, 5+3 and 3+2 are quite common time controls too. I just think that even they could be slightly improved. Of course it does also depend on the situation - the 8:1 ratio of White Rose's 80+10 is necessary when there's a really tight constraint on game length. And I know chess.com recently changed to 3+0 for some of the blitz tournaments specifically to eliminate the excessively long games.

The reason of popularity of 30s increment in OTB tournaments is that it's the shortest that makes recording mandatory regardless of remaining time so that there is not problem with handling the situations where one of the players (or even both) doesn't have to record.

While I understand the practical issues with longer increments, as a player notoriously prone to getting into time trouble I have to say I highly appreciate the 45+45 time control of the team league. Those extra 15 seconds (or rather something like 20 when comparing to OTB) come really handy in nontrivial endgames...

The reason of popularity of 30s increment in OTB tournaments is that it's the shortest that makes recording mandatory regardless of remaining time so that there is not problem with handling the situations where one of the players (or even both) doesn't have to record. While I understand the practical issues with longer increments, as a player notoriously prone to getting into time trouble I have to say I highly appreciate the 45+45 time control of the team league. Those extra 15 seconds (or rather something like 20 when comparing to OTB) come really handy in nontrivial endgames...

Well yeah more time is always nice when you need it but the whole point of a clock is to limit the game length and you can't fit a lot of moves into 3h other than by making them at a reasonable pace! It also gets pretty tedious when you're playing out a facile (but lengthy) win and your opponent insists on using all of their time looking for a miracle. Not that I blame the opponent for this, the problem is the time control.

Well yeah more time is always nice when you need it but the whole point of a clock is to limit the game length and you can't fit a lot of moves into 3h other than by making them at a reasonable pace! It also gets pretty tedious when you're playing out a facile (but lengthy) win and your opponent insists on using all of their time looking for a miracle. Not that I blame the opponent for this, the problem is the time control.

It is a very long increment, especially for an online game that doesn't have the need to do hand notation.

It is a very long increment, especially for an online game that doesn't have the need to do hand notation.

"Very long" is subjective. There are players who say that they cannot play rapid because the games would be too long. And at the same time others complain about 90+30 for the whole game negatively affecting the quality of the play compared to 90+30 for 40 moves...

"Very long" is subjective. There are players who say that they cannot play rapid because the games would be too long. And at the same time others complain about 90+30 for the whole game negatively affecting the quality of the play compared to 90+30 for 40 moves...

"Very long" is certainly correct in the global context of increments that are used in chess games around the world. I've never heard of an increment of more than 30s being used in any professional competition right up to world championship level where games commonly exceed 5h in duration. Have you? It's frankly bizarre that anyone could think it wasn't ample for amateur games of half that length.

"Very long" is certainly correct in the global context of increments that are used in chess games around the world. I've never heard of an increment of more than 30s being used in any professional competition right up to world championship level where games commonly exceed 5h in duration. Have you? It's frankly bizarre that anyone could think it wasn't ample for amateur games of half that length.

What do you mean when you say "games commonly exceed 5h in duration"? As far as the 45/45 league goes, it's believed based on the stats page that only one game has ever exceeded the five hour limit in all 47 seasons, and even 4h+ games are vanishingly rare. Granted, we can't know if any might have save for one player being unable to play so long, but it's certainly not common.

What do you mean when you say "games commonly exceed 5h in duration"? As far as the 45/45 league goes, it's believed based on the stats page that only one game has ever exceeded the five hour limit in all 47 seasons, and even 4h+ games are vanishingly rare. Granted, we can't know if any might have save for one player being unable to play so long, but it's certainly not common.

@jdannan said ^

Well yeah more time is always nice when you need it but the whole point of a clock is to limit the game length and you can't fit a lot of moves into 3h other than by making them at a reasonable pace! It also gets pretty tedious when you're playing out a facile (but lengthy) win and your opponent insists on using all of their time looking for a miracle. Not that I blame the opponent for this, the problem is the time control.

When my classical opps don’t concede, I promote extra pawns for BM. If they want to make me beat them I’m going to enjoy doing it a much as possible. I only play classical in leagues such as 4545, don’t know if this makes what I say worse or better lol

@jdannan said [^](/forum/redirect/post/nGT0GoVp) > Well yeah more time is always nice when you need it but the whole point of a clock is to limit the game length and you can't fit a lot of moves into 3h other than by making them at a reasonable pace! It also gets pretty tedious when you're playing out a facile (but lengthy) win and your opponent insists on using all of their time looking for a miracle. Not that I blame the opponent for this, the problem is the time control. When my classical opps don’t concede, I promote extra pawns for BM. If they want to make me beat them I’m going to enjoy doing it a much as possible. I only play classical in leagues such as 4545, don’t know if this makes what I say worse or better lol