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
"It is astonishing how much hot water a master can wade into in the first dozen moves, despite a century of opening study."    
William Napier

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.

Forum: General Forum
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: New article by Wim van Vugt analyzing time limits, tournament length and DMD issues

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

poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 4, 2007 5:12am
Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 4, 2007 7:25am
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 4, 2007 8:14am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 4, 2007 8:50am
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 6, 2007 8:16am
Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 3:14pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Wim van Vugt - Jun 6, 2007 4:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Uri Blass - Jun 7, 2007 8:26am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 8, 2007 5:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 9, 2007 10:06pm
Re: poor criticism - by Ron Langeveld - Jun 4, 2007 11:26pm
Re: Re: poor criticism - by Gino - Jun 6, 2007 2:54pm
Get your own FREE Forum today! 
Report Content ·  · Counters & Site Stats   Email Forms   Free Guestbooks   Free Web Tools 
powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com

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