| Subject: |
|
Re: New article by Wim van Vugt analyzing time limits, tournament length and DMD issues |
| Name: |
|
Ron Langeveld |
| Date Posted: |
|
Jun 1, 07 - 4:51 PM |
| Message: |
|
A very relevant article, because it clearly shows that a 2 year cycle for the ICCF WC is mere wishful thinking. It won't happen without drastic changes, which in turn will have other consequences ;)
I don't believe ICCF should try to implement a 2 year cycle. A 3 year cycle may be feasible with a 100 day carry-over-limit.
I know there are ideas to implement a different scheme that limits the number of days available after move 40, meaning that the game will be finished in a fixed time frame after move 40, whether there are just a couple of moves left to do or whether there are 40 more moves left to win an ending. Initially I thought this was a good idea but I changed my mind. Tournament organizers would be happy of course, but players will notice the downside in long (crucial) games. There is a risk that difficult endings will be forced into blitz mode past move 60 for example. The best blitzer may benefit from this extra time pressure. In some way this resembles OTB chess, so I don't think this approach is principally unfair, but I do believe it is principally contradicting the concept of correspondence chess. There should always be a 'steady supply' of days to use for such an ending.
Ron |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Pending TCCMB Exhibition Matches!
| 
TCCMB FAQ/Terms of Use |
Visit CC.COM's Online Store!
TCCMB
Video (Windows Media Player)
Reply
Home
bravenet.com
