@MagnusXL said in #14:
> but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
I so much agree with. Berzerking here is no challenge at all anymore.
> but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
I so much agree with. Berzerking here is no challenge at all anymore.
@MagnusXL said in #14:
> I personally like 1+0 and even usually berserk. 0+2 is fun too but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
I disagree, I prefer the slow time controls as the beauty of antichess lies within the endgame and not so much in blasting book moves and a random intermediate/blunder giving free wins.
Therefore 1+0 could very much be .5+2 This would give proper time for a decent endgame.
> I personally like 1+0 and even usually berserk. 0+2 is fun too but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
I disagree, I prefer the slow time controls as the beauty of antichess lies within the endgame and not so much in blasting book moves and a random intermediate/blunder giving free wins.
Therefore 1+0 could very much be .5+2 This would give proper time for a decent endgame.
0+2 is not a good alternative to 1+0. There should be some fixed time+2, maybe 30 sec + 2., or 15 sec+ 2.
0+2 is just too fast for an opening to be played at a decent level.
I'd prefer 1 min + 1 sec, or 45 sec + 1 sec.
Fixed time with no increment is an old school timer, but it has some adrenalin that increment doesn't have.
0+2 is just too fast for an opening to be played at a decent level.
I'd prefer 1 min + 1 sec, or 45 sec + 1 sec.
Fixed time with no increment is an old school timer, but it has some adrenalin that increment doesn't have.
@ZendiScar said in #23:
> I disagree, I prefer the slow time controls as the beauty of antichess lies within the endgame and not so much in blasting book moves and a random intermediate/blunder giving free wins.
>
> Therefore 1+0 could very much be .5+2 This would give proper time for a decent endgame.
This game is a good example how a time control of 1+0 has nothing to do with good antichess and that a 1+0 arena needs a makeover with some increment.
> I disagree, I prefer the slow time controls as the beauty of antichess lies within the endgame and not so much in blasting book moves and a random intermediate/blunder giving free wins.
>
> Therefore 1+0 could very much be .5+2 This would give proper time for a decent endgame.
This game is a good example how a time control of 1+0 has nothing to do with good antichess and that a 1+0 arena needs a makeover with some increment.
@MagnusXL said in #14:
> I personally like 1+0 and even usually berserk. 0+2 is fun too but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
You sure about that? With 3 minutes starting on your clock, you spent 5 seconds to get to this position as black:
You thought for 4 seconds, instantly blundered mate hoping your opponent wouldn't see the plan, but your opponent was simply executing the mating plan so you eventually resigned. In 5+0 there is no question you spend more than 4 seconds in that position before continuing. So really you should actually engage in active thought during games and 5+0 appears better simply due to the fact you avoid the situation I posted from your games.
Keep in mind that for this week Magnus is in the top 3% of antichess players, so it's not like he is just some beginner. He has over 60,000 games of anti worth of experience. My point is that every single player has games with that kind of situation because simply that happens to us especially when we are used to playing faster controls like 1/2 or 1+0 where you just gotta move move move (I can say at least in bullet chess, I don't know about bullet anti, but I assume you guys have some long 1+0 games too like 80+ moves). So really keep 5+0 it forces the player to stop and consider, and the situation changes as new layers of thought are actually possible.. Anyway.. Keep 5+0
> I personally like 1+0 and even usually berserk. 0+2 is fun too but we should get rid of the 5+0 for it instead, which I avoid playing because it is a waste of time. 3+0 is already plenty for antichess :)
You sure about that? With 3 minutes starting on your clock, you spent 5 seconds to get to this position as black:
You thought for 4 seconds, instantly blundered mate hoping your opponent wouldn't see the plan, but your opponent was simply executing the mating plan so you eventually resigned. In 5+0 there is no question you spend more than 4 seconds in that position before continuing. So really you should actually engage in active thought during games and 5+0 appears better simply due to the fact you avoid the situation I posted from your games.
Keep in mind that for this week Magnus is in the top 3% of antichess players, so it's not like he is just some beginner. He has over 60,000 games of anti worth of experience. My point is that every single player has games with that kind of situation because simply that happens to us especially when we are used to playing faster controls like 1/2 or 1+0 where you just gotta move move move (I can say at least in bullet chess, I don't know about bullet anti, but I assume you guys have some long 1+0 games too like 80+ moves). So really keep 5+0 it forces the player to stop and consider, and the situation changes as new layers of thought are actually possible.. Anyway.. Keep 5+0
Why not 5+0 and 2 hours :) some need to think bwhahahha
1+0
@MagnusXL Did you see my post above?
Even if I had only played a fraction of games compared to a lot of players here, I still have an idea of how anti works, and I want to say something about all time controls in general. Feel free to debate if you want.
About the slow time controls (3+0 and 5+0), which should be slow for anti since anti is based on forced captures: I suggest we keep them. We are familiar with questions like "Why can't I move anything?" or "How is this played?" from newbies. Forced captures make our games fascinating, but it's different from other variants where there are no such forced moves, which can be confusing to beginners. These slow time controls help new players grasp the game and watch as their more experienced peers showcase tactics like cleaning or endgames. If we want more people to know about anti, we must keep these.
About the faster time controls (1+0 and 2+0): I suggest we can alternate between 2+0 and 1+2, also 1+0 and 0+2, but don't abandon anything completely. The normal time controls are still necessary for beginner and intermediate players who would like something more challenging.
About the main subject: 1+0 or 0+2?
Well, I guess we can have fewer 1+0 tournaments, but maybe it should be 1/4+2 or 1/2+2. 3 seconds for the second move is a little too extreme, and a number of 0+2 games ended right on white's or black's second move. A little extra time at the start of the game helps players think through their options more carefully, instead of playing the same lines over and over again. Personally, I think that 1+0 is fine, mistakes are more easily made but are more easily ignored, and it leads to more surprises than normal time controls (and more flagging as well, but losing on time is not the flagger's fault! Having said that, I get flagged more than flag others. There are so many games when I have M1, M2, M3,... but can't execute them on time.). 0+2, 1/4+2, 1/2+2 reduce the flagging, and players need to start thinking how to win by variant ending instead of by running the opponent's clock to 0. Also, 2 seconds increment is enough for players low on time to at least be able to make the next move, so there's no frustration of making the final winning move and realizing you're 0.01 seconds too slow to defeating someone!
In the end, I would like to suggest that we do nothing about slow time controls, and maybe alternate between non-incremental and incremental arenas for faster time controls. Thanks for reading!
About the slow time controls (3+0 and 5+0), which should be slow for anti since anti is based on forced captures: I suggest we keep them. We are familiar with questions like "Why can't I move anything?" or "How is this played?" from newbies. Forced captures make our games fascinating, but it's different from other variants where there are no such forced moves, which can be confusing to beginners. These slow time controls help new players grasp the game and watch as their more experienced peers showcase tactics like cleaning or endgames. If we want more people to know about anti, we must keep these.
About the faster time controls (1+0 and 2+0): I suggest we can alternate between 2+0 and 1+2, also 1+0 and 0+2, but don't abandon anything completely. The normal time controls are still necessary for beginner and intermediate players who would like something more challenging.
About the main subject: 1+0 or 0+2?
Well, I guess we can have fewer 1+0 tournaments, but maybe it should be 1/4+2 or 1/2+2. 3 seconds for the second move is a little too extreme, and a number of 0+2 games ended right on white's or black's second move. A little extra time at the start of the game helps players think through their options more carefully, instead of playing the same lines over and over again. Personally, I think that 1+0 is fine, mistakes are more easily made but are more easily ignored, and it leads to more surprises than normal time controls (and more flagging as well, but losing on time is not the flagger's fault! Having said that, I get flagged more than flag others. There are so many games when I have M1, M2, M3,... but can't execute them on time.). 0+2, 1/4+2, 1/2+2 reduce the flagging, and players need to start thinking how to win by variant ending instead of by running the opponent's clock to 0. Also, 2 seconds increment is enough for players low on time to at least be able to make the next move, so there's no frustration of making the final winning move and realizing you're 0.01 seconds too slow to defeating someone!
In the end, I would like to suggest that we do nothing about slow time controls, and maybe alternate between non-incremental and incremental arenas for faster time controls. Thanks for reading!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.