Since 1998...

Play chess with people from all around the world!

Chess Book Store - Correspondence Chess Books, Tournament Booklets and More!

Contact Admin |  TCCMB-A |  TCCMB-B |  Friends of TCCMBCompleted TCCMB Exhibition Matches  
The Correspondence Chess Place |  The Campbell Report |  Ralph Marconi's Chess Pages  | Interactive Fiction
 TCCMB Photo Album/Contact List | Chess Webmaster Tools | ICCF WebChess Server  | CNN Headline News

TCCMB Chess Quote of the Week
"You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation."    
Plato

Pending TCCMB Exhibition Matches!  |  TCCMB FAQ/Terms of Use |  Visit CC.COM's Online Store!

TCCMB Video (Windows Media Player)

Hey - We're all at the other forum - come and join us!

  
Welcome to TCCMB. First time users - see the FAQ/Terms of use. In order to post here, you need the password.


Return to Website

  Reply
  Home

Subject:   Re: New article by Wim van Vugt analyzing time limits, tournament length and DMD issues
Name:   Uri Blass
Date Posted:   Jun 2, 07 - 9:14 AM
Message:   There was one thing that was not discussed in that article

What is the maximal time that most correspondence players practically use.

I am a player who usually use most of his time and I had a game when I used full 300 days for 50 moves(no DMD and I simply had an endgame when I had to find correct moves to save a draw).

The point is that based on what I heard from a friend and based on analysis of finished games in one tournament(including games of more than 60 moves) my impression is that most players who play in the server never use more than 35 days per 10 moves and if it is correct it is certainly possible to make tournaments for these players in time control of 35 days per 10 moves.

I think that it may be interesting to calculate for every player the maximal time that can be used when he does not need to change his time management not to lose on time in the relevant tournament.

Uri
Replies:    
Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Ken Reinhart · Jun 2, 07 - 6:34 PM
Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Wim van Vugt · Jun 2, 07 - 6:53 PM
Re: Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Ron Langeveld · Jun 3, 07 - 3:36 PM
poor criticism by Gino · Jun 4, 07 - 5:12 AM
Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 4, 07 - 7:25 AM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 4, 07 - 8:14 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 4, 07 - 8:50 AM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 6, 07 - 8:16 AM
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 3:14 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 6, 07 - 4:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 7, 07 - 8:26 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 8, 07 - 5:49 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Uri Blass · Jun 9, 07 - 5:33 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 9, 07 - 10:06 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Wim van Vugt · Jun 10, 07 - 12:09 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism by Nuutti Kuosa · Jun 12, 07 - 1:48 PM
Re: poor criticism by Ron Langeveld · Jun 4, 07 - 11:26 PM
Re: Re: poor criticism by Gino · Jun 6, 07 - 2:54 PM
Re: Re: yet more bad analysis with good math by Dave Taylor · Jun 5, 07 - 7:14 AM


  Reply
  Home


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com

FAQ/Terms of Use |  Chess Limericks |  Guestbook |  TCCMB Links | |  Play Java Blitz Now!