I've posted this idea in the past
but it got lost in the crowd (of
silly posts by others :-) -- actually
somewhere inside my own post :-)

In the case of the championship match
the playing tempo should be decided
by the champion and the challenger.
They would not have to discuss and agree
to anything. Thye would just play
according to the simple rule:

falling 90 minutes behind your
opponent on the clock loses
the game.

That's all.

****

Occasionally, the above simple rule
may be applied in other matches;
perhaps 90 minutes would be replaced
by 30.

***

BTW, I never liked the rule that the players
themselves have to watch the clock. Players,
as much as possible, should be preoccupied
with chess only. These days it's the best when
the clock itself tells the players that one of them
lost on time and the game is OVER automatically.

***

Regards,

Wlod

In article .com,
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod) wrote:

In the case of the championship match
the playing tempo should be decided
by the champion and the challenger.
They would not have to discuss and agree
to anything. Thye would just play
according to the simple rule:

falling 90 minutes behind your
opponent on the clock loses
the game.

That's all.

That's an 'hourglass' time limit, in effect. Hourglass time limits
work like ths: each side starts with n minutes (90 for example); the
time of the player to move ticks down, the opponent's ticks up (like
the sand of an hourglass running out of the player-on-move's side); a
player who runs out of time loses. You will note that if each side
started with 90 minutes, the player who loses on time has therefore
used 90 minutes more then the opponent.

It's not a bad idea. The only problem is that games could be very
long. Imagine if each side averaged 30 minutes per move, for example.
But at least it would require both sides wanting to spend a lot of
time for that to happen.

-ed g.
--
Caissa have mercy on a miserable patzer: http://altergoniff.blogspot.com

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've posted this idea in the past
but it got lost in the crowd (of
silly posts by others :-) -- actually
somewhere inside my own post :-)

In the case of the championship match
the playing tempo should be decided
by the champion and the challenger.
They would not have to discuss and agree
to anything. Thye would just play
according to the simple rule:

falling 90 minutes behind your
opponent on the clock loses
the game.

This famous brevity, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259009 Ed
Lasker v George Thomas, had as a time limit a maximum of 5-minutes
difference between the two players.

Ed Gaillard wrote:

That's an 'hourglass' time limit, in effect.

Yes. That was also senior master DB's instant reaction
to my proposal, long years ago.

It's not a bad idea. The only problem is that games could be very
long. Imagine if each side averaged 30 minutes per move, for example.
But at least it would require both sides wanting to spend a lot of
time for that to happen.

-ed g.

The emphasis should be on BOTH. The point is that it should be,
within a reason, up to the world champion and his/her challenger
how fast they want to move in their match, depending on the
position on the board.

Regards,

Wlod

Alan OBrien wrote:

This famous brevity,

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259009

Ed Lasker v George Thomas, had as a time limit a maximum
of 5-minutes difference between the two players.

Thank you. Delightful! :-)

Wlod