Time Player Chess

It can be annoying when players lose a chess game by only a few seconds, when their position may be completely winning, and in some cases they may have several extra pieces to the opponents one or two pawns.

This scenario only seems fair for the winner on the sole basis that the winner "had more time". The winner had more time because he or she managed their clock better than the opponent. However, at the same time the winner played worse chess moves, since they are down so much material.

I propose a new chess variant to combat this lack of equality.

Let's call it "Time Player Chess"

The idea is simple. At the end of the game rating points are awarded based on two factors.

Factor 1: The amount of extra time left on the winners clock

Factor 2: The amount of extra material the loser has

There are many ways to "slice the cake", a good way to think about the idea is that rating points aren't just awarded only on who won the game, but who performed best according to the two factors.

Example 1:

If I lose a game by 3 seconds; however, I had an extra queen, extra rook, and extra 2 pawns, then maybe the rating points should be divided equally. Nobody wins and nobody loses rating points.

Example 2:

If I lose a game by 35 seconds; however, I had an extra queen, extra room, and extra 2 pawns, then maybe the rating points should be 70/30. Where my opponent only wins 70 percent of the total possible winning points.

Example 2 is different from example 1 only in that in example 2 Factor 1 is larger, and since my opponent won on time with additional time left on his clock, then he won more points than in example 1.

This really is a simple chess variant. The only difference is the way the points are divided. However, this change in the way points are divided will affect the way the players approach the game.

The algorithm for the points distribution would be very simple to create, we would just have to decide how to weigh the factors.

Comments are all appreciated.

Chess isn't a count-the-beans game of material.

I sacrificed two pieces for a mating attack. Are you saying I shouldn't gain rating points because my opponent couldn't find a defense and lost on time?

There are an infinite number of examples in which the side shorter on material is drawing or winning. Ever hear of gambits? Sacrificing a pawn for the initiative? How about blockades in endgames?

No, your idea has no value at all. Sorry, but when you run out of time YOU LOSE.
Unless your opponent doesn't have mating material.

urk:

I am well aware of the issues you brought up.
However, your conclusion that there is no value in the idea is frankly, wrong.

Of course there will have to be conditions taken into account in the algorithm. Conditions like those, will have to matter in the dividing of points.

To say that there is no value is giving up on the idea when we just started.

Gotta give it to Urk here. And this is a man who lives in a cave. Doesn't even know when the computer age started. 

I think instead of "counting the beans" as a factor. The factor should be a positional assessment by an engine. So before points are divided, an engine evaluates the position.

That solves a lot of the problems that urk brought up. In his example, since the opponent is dead and lost on time, then that would be essentially the same result is a mate.

So, if there is mate on board then full points. If someone flags, then the position is assessed and the remaining time is taken into account, to divide the points.

Just because there are problems with an idea, doesn't mean we can't find solutions. The goal is an end result which takes into account both the position and the clock.

I know it can be done.

Another reason this is a really awful, no good idea is that it would deflate the game by removing a lot of the drama.

No more time scrambles, no more nail biters; the time control only a suggestion without much meaning.

In tournaments when players run out of time the spectators would only yawn as Big Daddy Computer is then consulted for its verdict.

One thing chess DOESN'T need is more yawning.

urk:

Thanks for your insightful comments. I agree with the points you make, except for your opinion that the idea is aweful.

How would you really know what it would be like without actually trying?

You can imagine, but what you forget to mention is the benefits of the idea. Emphasis would be placed on playing better chess moves, instead of the scramble.

There may be any number of benefits and drawbacks associated with this change. Let's please analyze both, then make opinions about whether the idea is "aweful".

I am open to trying it out a few times, to see what it's like.

There are easier solutions than changing the rules for the benefit of those who can't cope with them:

1). The player who can't cope with the time limit could simply play games with a more generous time limit

2). The player who can't cope with the time limit could play more games with the same (or lower, if possible) time limits in order to habituate themselves to playing at the speed they want to.

Murgen:

The purpose of the new rule is NOT for people that can't "cope" with the time pressure. The time pressure really has nothing to do with it at all.

The goal of the new rule is:

To accommodate both the positional assessment and the time management as a measure of how well the winner and loser performed, which I want reflected in the rating points awarded or not awarded.

so as I see it an emphasis on material would cause a number of distortions onto a basic game of chess....

 

First, let us imagine one side has a fleeting swindle hope for checkmate- the other a bunch of pawns.   the guy with extra pawns realizes he must create material for maximum rating gain- rather than an skillful and efficient check mate; he sends his walls of pawns forward to promotion, knowing that  even he stalemates his overwhelming material will guarentee rating gain.   as for his opponent; poor guy- clearly a chessplayer of former times; hoping for a swindle checkmate- that does no good (except for a sudden stop to his opponent Queen coronations!);  he loses even if he wins.  he loses if he loses too... but he can only be thankful if he opponent is witless enough to stop the fun of queening....  thus in the end the simple act of queening (and irrespective of a queens ability to checkmate)  is then the pivotal skill in chess. 

 

Next situation; another game early in the middlegame.  peices are out and the formal opening has been announced by all the MCO/chessbase users.  A inaccuracy spiral out of control and one side is just about ready to win a peice.   Quickly seizing the initiative his opponent .... Resigns!   why?  because time is equal and so is material.  the supercomputer shows more complications than will surely exist in a move; and less rating gain.  Surprisingly the resigning player Does NOT lose rating.  because he opponent was higher rated (slightly) and other factors are close.  A guy Wins by Losing!!!  not only does he win, he wins nearly as much as if they had battled for a long 5 hours into a tense but drawn endgame.

 

this becomes the New "draw"!   Draw by opening inaccuracy and resignation sweeps the chess world.   suddenly tournaments full of lengthy battles with turning points and long periods of defense and counterplay are replaced with sudden resignation.  after all, who in the world smartest board game players would spend hours and hours battling for hours in despicable defense; when its perfectly clear that gambling odds would be that they could never restore material equity.

 

the tension is maintained in the current game; since the checkmate in whatever ignomious material odds still gives the swindle guy a full win; with as much rating as he is due.

 

In short, I think adjusting a game for material or time causes distortions that are not good for  the game and douse the unpredictability and fighting spirit of the game.

 

I get a sense this is more about time and more about online chess.  but you miss the point;  Online chess was Always meant to be a copy of the OTB game-- and many of us use the online game to prepare for OTB tournaments. 

So are the rules.

 

If you lose with a fraction of a second with an armee of pieces against a lonesome king then you did worse than the opponent and complaints should be adressed to yourself. In chess strategy, tactic counts and fun comes up winning with a brilliant strategy against a stronger armee of pieces. On the other side a player should be able to win with better and more pieces. If he/she couldn't archive this, then there is a good reason to lose on time. I hope u get my point, there is a good reason for the rules as they are and changing them (as suggested with your timeplayerchess) is a bigger shift on the core-part of Chess.

I don't think that you guys are understanding what i am proposing here.  I am NOT proposing to change the rules of standard chess.  I am proposing to create a new chess variant, that is all.