Body: <p>When playing the game of go online, a common time control setting is for players to have X (e.g., 10, 20, or 30) seconds per move, with the clock simply resetting after each move.</p>
  <p>(There are variations to this <em>byo-yomi</em> theme, such as first having Y minutes of main time, and only entering the per move time controls once that main time has run out. Another common thing is to have a set of (Z) per move timers. For example &quot;10 (5)&quot; would indicate that you only lose on time after failing 5 times to play a move within 10 seconds.)</p>
  <p>Advantages to this system are:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Easy to mentally keep track of how much time can be spent thinking on a move.</li>
  <li>Games are less likely to be &quot;ruined&quot; by either of both players entering a &quot;time crunch&quot;.</li>
  <li>Reduces the annoyance of players letting their clock run out.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>There are perhaps drawbacks too though that didn't occur to me yet. So with that in mind...</p>
  <p><strong>What are the reasons that per move time controls are seen as relatively unattractive for the game of chess?</strong></p>
  <p>BTW, I've of course noticed the relative popularity of Fischer style time increments in Chess, but personally I find these much harder to keep track of. Often I find myself racking up way more time on the clock than intended, turning what was intended as a fast game into a rather slow affair. Or with an increment of 3s or less the reverse is true. The resulting volatility makes me lose on time way more often than I'd care to admit.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T05:37:17.383Z
Comments.Text: The main reason is it takes away a players ability to allot different amounts of time to different positions. If 4 out of 5 moves are easy moves that I can decide on quickly, but 1 out of 5 is a difficult position that requires some thought, then I want to be able to spend much of my time on that 1 move and make up for it by making the other 4 moves quickly.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T05:41:46.833Z
Comments.Text: @koedem Sure, but you can apply a similar strategy with a per move timer: don't play immediately after you've decided your move, but use the remainder of your move's time to think about upcoming moves.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Will
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T05:49:19.237Z
Comments.Text: Yes you can do that, but then it depends on what your opponent plays. Why not just make the move and then think that on your opponents time? Deliberately not moving when you already know what your move will be seems like an arbitrary hindrance to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T05:53:45.970Z
Comments.Text: To give a specific example of a time usage pattern: what often happens is that some position holds a deep strategical decision for one player, who will spend a lot of time, then after they move the opponent in turn spends a lot of time considering the implications of that strategic decision and how to counter it. If you want to allow that in a fixed time per move setting you would need very long times per move, defeating the purpose. Or you have too short time per moves and then your quality of play will be much lower since you never have time for longer big picture decisions.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T05:58:13.320Z
Comments.Text: @koedem It's not a hindrance at all: it's what hundreds of professional go players do worldwide. It might be hard to reason about intuitively without experience playing with both systems though. And really, it "depends on what your opponent plays" either way: with increments you gamble just as much that your oppent plays as you expect. How else would you evaluate whether upcoming moves are likely to require more or less thinking time?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Will
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T06:23:45.170Z
Comments.Text: I tried to create a chatroom for this discussion, let's see if that worked. https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/132726/time-controls-of-chess-games
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T08:05:56.590Z
Comments.Text: How is it an advantage of time control per move that it is "Easy to mentally keep track of how much time can be spent thinking on a move."? That time control forces you to watch the clock every single move. A time control with a suitably large main amount (as well as an increment) doesn't force you to watch the clock so often.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T08:22:45.833Z
Comments.Text: @RosieF Because having the same time interval for every move means it becomes a rhythm. As a result, I find that I look at the clock less often rather than more. With increments I have much more difficulty keeping track on an intuitive level.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Will
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-12-30T11:12:28.087Z
Comments.Text: That sounds more like you're not used to the time control, many experienced players will almost never look at the clock in these time controls with significant base time. Because, you guessed it, they feel on an intuitive level how much time they spent. You can get used to pretty much any time control. The reason chess uses large base time is because it gives the player more choice in allotting their time however they want. Generally speaking, this allows for higher quality of play at the same time per move. One could change the TC, but unless there is a compelling reason, players won't.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Tags: <rules><online-chess><time-control><time-management>
Title: Why are seconds per move time controls unpopular in chess?
ThreadText: # Why are seconds per move time controls unpopular in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-30)
  
  When playing the game of go online, a common time control setting is for players to have X (e.g., 10, 20, or 30) seconds per move, with the clock simply resetting after each move.
  
  (There are variations to this *byo-yomi* theme, such as first having Y minutes of main time, and only entering the per move time controls once that main time has run out. Another common thing is to have a set of (Z) per move timers. For example "10 (5)" would indicate that you only lose on time after failing 5 times to play a move within 10 seconds.)
  
  Advantages to this system are:
  
  * Easy to mentally keep track of how much time can be spent thinking on a move.
  * Games are less likely to be "ruined" by either of both players entering a "time crunch".
  * Reduces the annoyance of players letting their clock run out.
  
  There are perhaps drawbacks too though that didn't occur to me yet. So with that in mind...
  
  **What are the reasons that per move time controls are seen as relatively unattractive for the game of chess?**
  
  BTW, I've of course noticed the relative popularity of Fischer style time increments in Chess, but personally I find these much harder to keep track of. Often I find myself racking up way more time on the clock than intended, turning what was intended as a fast game into a rather slow affair. Or with an increment of 3s or less the reverse is true. The resulting volatility makes me lose on time way more often than I'd care to admit.
  
  **Tags:** rules, online-chess, time-control, time-management
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The main reason is it takes away a players ability to allot different amounts of time to different positions. If 4 out of 5 moves are easy moves that I can decide on quickly, but 1 out of 5 is a difficult position that requires some thought, then I want to be able to spend much of my time on that 1 move and make up for it by making the other 4 moves quickly.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 Sure, but you can apply a similar strategy with a per move timer: don't play immediately after you've decided your move, but use the remainder of your move's time to think about upcoming moves.  
  > **username_1**: Yes you can do that, but then it depends on what your opponent plays. Why not just make the move and then think that on your opponents time? Deliberately not moving when you already know what your move username_0 be seems like an arbitrary hindrance to me.  
  > **username_1**: To give a specific example of a time usage pattern: what often happens is that some position holds a deep strategical decision for one player, who username_0 spend a lot of time, then after they move the opponent in turn spends a lot of time considering the implications of that strategic decision and how to counter it. If you want to allow that in a fixed time per move setting you would need very long times per move, defeating the purpose. Or you have too short time per moves and then your quality of play username_0 be much lower since you never have time for longer big picture decisions.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 It's not a hindrance at all: it's what hundreds of professional go players do worldwide. It might be hard to reason about intuitively without experience playing with both systems though. And really, it "depends on what your opponent plays" either way: with increments you gamble just as much that your oppent plays as you expect. How else would you evaluate whether upcoming moves are likely to require more or less thinking time?  
  > **username_1**: I tried to create a chatroom for this discussion, let's see if that worked. https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/132726/time-controls-of-chess-games  
  > **username_2**: How is it an advantage of time control per move that it is "Easy to mentally keep track of how much time can be spent thinking on a move."? That time control forces you to watch the clock every single move. A time control with a suitably large main amount (as well as an increment) doesn't force you to watch the clock so often.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Because having the same time interval for every move means it becomes a rhythm. As a result, I find that I look at the clock less often rather than more. With increments I have much more difficulty keeping track on an intuitive level.  
  > **username_1**: That sounds more like you're not used to the time control, many experienced players username_0 almost never look at the clock in these time controls with significant base time. Because, you guessed it, they feel on an intuitive level how much time they spent. You can get used to pretty much any time control. The reason chess uses large base time is because it gives the player more choice in allotting their time however they want. Generally speaking, this allows for higher quality of play at the same time per move. One could change the TC, but unless there is a compelling reason, players won't.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  