chess time clock - how long can a game last

Hello Everyone,

Please forgive me if this is posted in the wrong forum.

Given a simple time such as 30 min. Meaning simple game time countdown.

Both players have 30 min.

The clock starts on white's first move.

How long can the game last?

I am having this argument with my daughter about the answer.

My answer is no longer than 30 min because it is a countdown with each player using there own time. The question is not about if the game is shorter as that is non relevant.

She believes that if each player has 30 min then the total amount of time that could be played is one hour.

So can anyone provide a math proof as to who is right?

If I am to be proven right or wrong I need a proof.

Frankly, it seems simple enough to me but I can't convince her nor can I find the answer anywhere.

Thanks

DrMatrix360

A 30|0 game could last up to an hour, by default. Here, with lag adjustments, it could last a little longer. Each player has 30 minutes and their clock isn't running when it's not their turn.

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I should clarify.

Discount lag like it was a in person game with timer.

Base this on a 40 move game. If we played correctly we are counting down on each move therefore there is no way it could last one hour.

Hehe me thinks the question is a bit more complicated. Perhaps this is a log equation with many answers.....

Also, by default somebody has to move...sooo 29.99 min for one move equals 29.99 min for second move so I guess technically it could be 60 min less 2 seconds.

Bump....

Well hells bells I figured this question would get answered right quick due to the number of brains stalking the forums.  I mean we got a bunch of geniuses around here don't we...LOL

Is it worthy of an answer???? Maybe post in another forum?

Chess.com monitors time within 0.1 seconds, so if one player used 29 minutes 59.9 seconds while their opponent used their entire time allotment and ran out of time (thus losing the game), the game would have lasted 59 minutes and 59.9 seconds.

One-tenth of a second short of an hour.

This is true but not realistic. I clarified a 40 move game.

For example:  20 moves in 20 seconds x2 = 40 moves total in 40 seconds=game over either way.

See my point?

I was hoping for a "Math Proof" of some kind that gives us a scale of time/moves.

It is obvious that in a 40 move game it can NOT last one hour. How do we show this?

We can pick any constant but will it be the same for both equations. Introducing a random factor is perhaps useful. No player is going to take the exact same amount of time. The clock is always ticking down.

No, what is obvious is that you don't understand how chess time controls work.

Each player is free to use their own alloted time as they see fit. The only exception to this... for online play ONLY... is that a player is considered to have abandoned the game if they use more than half of their time on any one move (there is no such limitation in face-to-face play).

So consider the following case:

Time control: game in 30. Each player receives 30 minutes in which to play the game.

I am playing White.

I spend 5 minutes thinking on each move, with the exception of my 6th move on which I spend 4 minutes 59.9 seconds instead.

My opponent spends 5 minutes on each move, and forfeits the game (by running out of time and losing) on move 6.

Total game length: six moves, 59 minutes 59.9 seconds.

Blueemu wrote: "No, what is obvious is that you don't understand how chess time controls work."

HAHAHA - I  wrote that just for you.....I knew you couldn't resist the ..ummm insult come back. Its all good man. LOL. I was going to edit it but thought I might get an intelligent answer.

Welp thanks for the replies.

I think were done here.

I was looking for a more math oriented answer. I will pose the question somewhere else.

It doesn't work that way, because chess doesn't work that way. 

It pretty common for a GM to spend 15 ~ 20 minutes on a single move, and even high rated players can spend a long time playing, nor is there a mathematical reason some moves take longer than others.   If a very complicated situation arises, it isn't unusual for a classically timed player to calculate out 3 or 4 different lines, several moves in advance. 

That stuff takes time. 

Anyways, here is proof you are wrong in literally a common game right here:

https://www.chess.com/live/game/10352240699

Two players, highish rated, the game lasted 48 minutes with only 38 moves. 

It would last for around 60 minutes at most because 30+30=60.

30+30 is the most common rapid game(in tournaments) so if we look at a 40 move game.

30 minutes of first player+30 minutes of the sec 1 hour.

40 moves by both=(40×30)2= 2400 sec40 minutes.

So the maximum time it would take is 1 hour 40 mins(assuming that the game has 40 moves that is standardized)

Yeah this is right. Your time is a resource and moving in 20 seconds each time is sure to lead to blunders.

a G/30 game lasts maximum 60 min. not complicated. your daughter is smarter than you

WTF are you talking about?! the number of moves and time they take is completely irrelevant. You have 30 minutes MAX to make your moves and you have to sit there 30 min MAX while your opponent goes. that's 60 minutes. MAXIMUM. That's the answer to the initial question.

To your point: If you make 40 moves in 30 minutes its 30 min DIVIDED by 40 moves. An AVERAGE of 45 seconds per move. With your math you'd be making a move every 2.5 minutes. With only 30 minutes on your clock you could only make 12 moves at that pace. Yes, 40 moves every 2.5 minutes would be 100 minutes (1hr 40min)....but that exceeds the time control!

You could easily make 120 moves in your 30 minutes if you averaged 15 seconds per move. of course your opponent would need to be just as fast or they would flag. BUT NO MATTER WHAT, THE GAME WILL LAST NO MORE THAN 60 MINUTES

you all completely over-complicated this.

why add the minutae about lag?! 60 minutes! the answer is 60 minutes!

lol i was referring to all the old posts. thought i was ranting on an old thread didnt even see you there posting now