Answers.Body: <p>The purpose of both increments and adjournments is to relieve some time pressure off of the players. Therefore, the relevance to increments is that increments, or additional time added to the clock after each move, can serve as a substitute for adjournment. It does so by adding a certain amount of time to the clock of each player after every move. This way, the game can continue without interruption, and players have less incentive to use outside resources during the game. It also is completed in one sitting, eliminating the need for a break (adjournment). Fischer was a strong advocate for increments.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-03-31T09:34:14.553Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-04-28T22:27:18.097Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-04-28T22:27:18.097Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Starship
Answers.Body: <p>&quot;as well as the quantity and quality of help that player had in analyzing the game during the adjournment...&quot;
  was clearly an issue when he was playing an opponent from USSR.</p>
  <p>In any tournament in his prime years there were always many USSR top GMs that could help each other in various ways.
  Sometimes players could even go to sleep, leave the others do the analysis work, wake-up fresh, study the analysis, and go to the borad to play against an opponent that might have spent the night on the board.</p>
  <p>Today with computers adjournment has lost any mening.</p>
  <p>Today teams are also different: e.g. Calsen against Nepo had Dubov, a russian as Nepo, in his team.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-05-03T20:21:17.917Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-05-04T15:37:48.057Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-05-04T15:37:48.057Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1708042
Body: <p>Bobby Fischer, as quoted by Jim Ratliff in <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41573/what-has-bobby-fischer-said-about-increment-similar-to-chess960">a question about increment</a> says:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>The result of adjournments is often a skewing of a particular player's chess-playing ability since the success or failure of a player upon resumption of an adjourned game often depends on the amount of time spent analyzing the game during the adjournment as well as the quantity and quality of help that player had in analyzing the game during the adjournment.… Thus, the play of the game upon resumption of the adjournment does not necessarily reflect the ability of a particular player, but rather it may be more a reflection of the ability of his team of analysts, books and computers. There are many people, including the present inventor, who wish to eliminate adjournments for exactly this reason. A chess game should be an accurate reflection of the ability of a particular player and not a reflection of the strength and ability of his team of analysts, books and computers.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>It's a good argument against adjournment, but what's the relevance to increments?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-02-11T21:22:27.480Z
Comments.Text: Who is Jim Ratliff? Is this a famous chess player I haven't heard of?
Comments.UserDisplayName: SecretAgentMan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-02-27T09:39:02.740Z
Comments.Text: The reason for increment is another : Without increment , there are too many games where a player loses on time in an utterly won position just because he cannot make the moves physcially fast enough. The idea was to prevent this , but still limiting the time the player has. With increment , a player can still run out of time , but he won't lose on time in "dedaly-won" positions.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-05-05T18:11:30.437Z
Comments.Text: @SecretAgentMan The answerer of the linked question
Comments.UserDisplayName: isaacg
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-05-05T20:04:36.943Z
Comments.Text: @isaacg  sarcasm
Comments.UserDisplayName: SecretAgentMan
Tags: <history><time-control><increment><adjournment>
Title: Why is Bobby Fischer's argument against adjournment an argument for increment?
ThreadText: # Why is Bobby Fischer's argument against adjournment an argument for increment?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-02-11)
  
  Bobby Fischer, as quoted by Jim Ratliff in [a question about increment](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/41573/what-has-bobby-fischer-said-about-increment-similar-to-chess960) says:
  
  > The result of adjournments is often a skewing of a particular player's chess-playing ability since the success or failure of a player upon resumption of an adjourned game often depends on the amount of time spent analyzing the game during the adjournment as well as the quantity and quality of help that player had in analyzing the game during the adjournment.… Thus, the play of the game upon resumption of the adjournment does not necessarily reflect the ability of a particular player, but rather it may be more a reflection of the ability of his team of analysts, books and computers. There are many people, including the present inventor, who wish to eliminate adjournments for exactly this reason. A chess game should be an accurate reflection of the ability of a particular player and not a reflection of the strength and ability of his team of analysts, books and computers.
  
  It's a good argument against adjournment, but what's the relevance to increments?
  
  **Tags:** history, time-control, increment, adjournment
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Who is Jim Ratliff? Is this a famous chess player I haven't heard of?  
  > **username_2**: The reason for increment is another : Without increment , there are too many games where a player loses on time in an utterly won position just because he cannot make the moves physcially fast enough. The idea was to prevent this , but still limiting the time the player has. With increment , a player can still run out of time , but he won't lose on time in "dedaly-won" positions.  
  > **username_3**: @username_1 The answerer of the linked question  
  > **username_1**: @username_3  sarcasm  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2023-03-31. Score: 5
  
  The purpose of both increments and adjournments is to relieve some time pressure off of the players. Therefore, the relevance to increments is that increments, or additional time added to the clock after each move, can serve as a substitute for adjournment. It does so by adding a certain amount of time to the clock of each player after every move. This way, the game can continue without interruption, and players have less incentive to use outside resources during the game. It also is completed in one sitting, eliminating the need for a break (adjournment). Fischer was a strong advocate for increments.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2023-05-03. Score: 2
  
  "as well as the quantity and quality of help that player had in analyzing the game during the adjournment..."
  was clearly an issue when he was playing an opponent from USSR.
  
  In any tournament in his prime years there were always many USSR top GMs that could help each other in various ways.
  Sometimes players could even go to sleep, leave the others do the analysis work, wake-up fresh, study the analysis, and go to the borad to play against an opponent that might have spent the night on the board.
  
  Today with computers adjournment has lost any mening.
  
  Today teams are also different: e.g. Calsen against Nepo had Dubov, a russian as Nepo, in his team.
  
  
  ---
  
  